Trans woman wins sex harassment payout after being “harassed for being female”.

[IwantToRetire]

I found the article really badly written in the sense that it didn't just go through the judgement step by step.

The collections worker said the ruling is “a win for the transgender community” because it “proves that trans people can still win sex harassment claims in their real gender”.

Full article at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/13/royal-mail-employment-tribunal-trans-woman/

Also at https://archive.is/jvPEt

So as I understand it, sex and racial harassment etc is predicated on the harasser’s perception of the victim. So, erm, it has little to do with a win for trans persons, per sé, because any gender non confirming male who is mistaken for a woman and harassed can claim, or a masc lesbian who is mistaken for a man and harassed accordingly.

The major point here is that this win shows that trans persons DO have the same human and legal rights as non trans persons and the rightful expectation of protection of those rights in law. So maybe they can stop hiding in their homes or whatever it is that TRAs are claiming they are doing because they are so unsafe?

Sorry if that sounds harsh. But, really?

You've always been able to claim for sex discrimination on the basis of perceived sex as far as i know. It's the same as if someone discriminates because they think you're a lesbian - you wouldn't actually need to be a lesbian to be protected under the EA

It has always been possible to win a payout for being perceived as belonging to a protected group even if you don’t. So if a straight person was seen as gay and harassed for it, that person could win a tribunal. Not sure how this is different to that case.

We cross posted @spannasaurus and you were much more succinct than I was 🤣

I'm only succinct because it takes me so long to write posts on my phone

Agree withheld above nothing to see the court did not affirm this person as a biological female.

Also it sounds like they suffered unjustifiable cruelty and harassment.

Good. Noone should be bullied and harassed at work.

I mean agree with everyone above tsk

And as very clearly explained in the Supreme Court ruling, transgender individuals continue to be protected from sexual harassment of their perceived biological sex.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68b82c18cc8356c3c882aa0b/Miss_Sophie_Cole_v_Royal_Mail_Group_Limited-3303104.2024-FMH_Judgment.pdf

Disappointingly, no written reasons.

Sounds like a fair result and in accordance with the FWS judgment:

249. It is now well-established that direct discrimination because of a protected characteristic (section 13 of the EA 2010) encompasses not only cases where the complainant affected by discrimination has the protected characteristic in question, but also where the discriminator perceives that the complainant has the characteristic, or in some other way associates the complainant with the protected characteristic. [...]

250. Applied in the context of a discrimination claim made by a trans woman (a biological male with or without a GRC), the claimant can claim sex discrimination because she is perceived as a woman and can compare her treatment with that of a person not perceived to be a woman (whether that is a biological male or a trans man perceived to be male). There is no need for her to declare her true biological sex. There is nothing disadvantageous about this approach. Neither a biological woman nor a trans woman “bring a claim of direct sex discrimination as a woman” (as the EHRC suggests). That is not how the EA 2010 operates: a person brings a claim alleging sex discrimination because of a protected characteristic of sex.

251. Take, for example, a trans woman who applies for a job as a sales representative and the sales manager thinks that she is a biological woman because of her appearance and does not offer her the job even though she performed best at interview and gives the job instead to a biological man. She would have a claim for direct discrimination because of her perceived sex and her comparator would be someone who is not perceived to be a woman. The fact that she is not a biological woman should make no difference to her claim, which would be treated in the same way as a direct discrimination claim made by a biological woman based on the sex of the complainant herself.

I think what made me think is this new, is the reference to having to seek guidance because of Supreme Court ruling.

Although maybe it is about the Supreme Court ruling not stopping what has happened before and why there is a "still" in this quote:

“proves that trans people can still win sex harassment claims in their real gender”.

It was a kindness of the Judge not to mention perceptive discrimination, nor indeed does it matter. Claimant was harassed and discriminated against both for being transgender (colleagues aware) and for being a transgender woman. It doesn't make him legally biologically female.

I think this is a misinterpretation - or ideologically based spin by mx Cole - because they didn’t win a case ‘in their perceived gender’. Their gender was irrelevant. They won the case because they were harassed and bullied on the grounds that some tosser perceived them as female and the Royal Mail did nothing to address it. Not because they perceived them as being transgender.

I bet if he had been a transman, she would have got bullied both for being transgender and as a member of her true sex. Because of who was doing the bullying.

Yes, you don't need to be the target group to qualify. I posted on another forum, about 7 years ago, about homophobic abuse I got. (I'm not gay). I simply had the temerity ro be carrying my daughter's multicoloured umbrella to a school pick up, a car with two youngish couples pulled up and they shouted at me.

I shrugged it off, bemused. A couple of legal posters advised me that it was a homophobic hate crime and to report it. They explained why it was so, even though I'm not what they thought I was.

I'm glad to see that the employment tribunal system is providing redress to the victims of workplace bullying, as it should. As prior posters have commented, a person may be the victim of discrimination on the basis of a perceived protected characteristic and the law rightly protects them.

I hope that Sophie Cole enjoys his payout.

From the examples given in the article it appears that he was bullied on grounds of his sex being male while he presents as a female so maybe that counts as grounds for harassment on grounds of gender reassignment.

Despite his clear desperation for it to be true I don’t believe any of it was anything to do with him being ‘female’ or even perceived as female. The behaviour sounds like it would have been unacceptable for any other male to undergo and the only references in the article to the judgement being because he was perceived as female was from him - there are tellingly very few verified details of the judgement.

He succeeded on sex discrimination/harassment grounds - see attached image (link to full judgment posted upthread).

I’m glad he won his case of harassment, spitting on someone is absolutely vile. However as I’ve seen it reported there’s nothing ground breaking in the judgment, SC also confirmed transwomen could still claim sex discrimination based on perceived sex.

His sex is male though and as far as I can see the judgement doesn’t contradict that?

So unless I’m missing something he won on sex discrimination in the same way as any other man would have done? ‘Touching’ was mentioned as part of the harassment which would presumably apply to men as well?

We don't have a lot of information, and the claimant's account is likely to be unreliable. But the fact that the Judge had to seek clarification on the SC ruling suggests the plea was based on (female) sex.

From the report:

Cole said the judge ruled that “if an individual ‘deemed’ me to be a woman when they harassed me, I could be listed as a ‘female victim’”.

The 'deemed' language suggests perceptive discrimination. The last eight words are nonsense though.

Happy that he got his judgement, but you have to wonder how much he suffered if he's so thrilled to have been harassed "as a female" (as he sees it, not saying his description is legally accurate). If that's the part that is important to him, the cynical me wonders if he found it validating to some extent.

Well if nothing else, which I think a PP mentioned, this judgement clarifies that the Supreme Court ruling defining sex as biological has NOT disadvanted trans people.

The judgement seems to have been in line with what the judgement would have been prior to the Supreme Court ruling. And this is definite as the court took the time to clarify if the court ruling had meant cases like this would be different.

So women, actual women have had their sexed identity confirmed, but a TW can, as has always been, claim discrimination of the bases of being preceived as trans and perceived as female. Although the last does not confirm they are biologically female!

Needless to say, nobody should be treated like that at work. This worker should be and is protected.

Nice to have a little demo of the Supreme Court (as advised by Ben Cooper) being exactly right about there being no impact on TW's protection against discrimination. Related to sex here could be either perceived as or associated with the female sex couldn't it? Main thing discrimination has been correctly dealt with and the Supreme Court ruling as expected provided no barrier to that.