Thanks for that. It was interesting reading the judgment.
V was employed as a Catering Assistant in 2020, V only wanted to work for a maximum of 16 hours per week but took a full time job.
Notice was sent out to staff that a transwoman was going to start working there and that they would be using a shower cubicle in the female changing room.
The Trust also provided EDI "training" to staff. The Tribunal noted that:
"Some expressed concerns, mainly female members of staff worried about sharing the ladies changing room with a transgender woman"
(but, of course, no account was taken of those concerns)
Then, at one point, V came across a note that had been placed in V's locker in the women's changing room that said (I've redacted part of it as I don't know what MN's rules are on this)
"Get out you ty freak"
On another occasion, while V was getting changed they overheard a conversation as follows:
Voice one: I am sick to death of this bloke with a dick pretending to be a woman, who doesn’t even dress like a girl and has facial hair, that thing may rape me and we can drive it out of the department and maybe find a suitable leper colony for it.
Voice two: I agree but we need to do something but what can we do when management are sucking up to that thing.
V then took time off work due to stress and there was a whole "attendance management" process that they went through.
V returned to work and, on one occasion, while working made a comment to a line manager that V was very hot and:
"At that point the Claimant told her she was so hot she had taken her underwear off, and made a wringing motion with her hands."
V denied having said this but the Tribunal found that V did say this.
V then went off sick again and on return faced a disciplinary process.
There was then an interview and V was asked about this removing the underwear incident. There had also been a report of about V being naked from the waist down in the changing room.
However, the interviewer then went further and asked if V wore or changed underwear at work and whether V was ever inappropriately dressed at work.
The Tribunal said:
"A concern about the Claimant’s state of undress in the changing rooms was likely to be connected with the fact that she is a transgender woman. This was a communal changing room with a shower cubicle. It did not seem to the Tribunal likely that there would have been a concern about a cisgender woman in a state of undress while changing in such a changing room."
It went on to say:
"The Tribunal therefore concluded that Mrs Hawkshaw asked the questions because of a concern that the Claimant as a transgender woman might be in a state of undress in the female changing room. That was because of gender reassignment. Mrs Hawkshaw would not have asked the questions of a cisgender woman"
V was awarded £7,000 for injury to feelings along with £810 interest
.
That was in 2022. Frankly, I think if that employment tribunal was taking place today then the outcome would be very different indeed.