Employment Tribunal finds NB does not meet PC of GR

[DrProfessorYaffle]

https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/h-lockwood-v-cheshire-and-wirral-nhs-foundation-trust-and-others-2401211-slash-2024-and-2407178-slash-2024

"Although the claimant has taken steps to change attributes of their sex
from female, by changing their name to a name which can be identified as of
either sex, and has changed their preferred pronouns, those are not in our
view attributes which are for the purpose of moving from one sex to the other,
they are steps in the process of moving away from the female sex to a
different gender identity, ie that of non binary. The claimant is not proposing,
nor do they intend to take any steps to reassign their sex from that of female
to male.
105. We therefore find that the claimant does not have the protected
characteristic of gender reassignment."

'These ongoing issues caused the claimant anxiety as to when they may be misgendered again or see their deadname.'

Anyone suffering such extreme anxiety at the sight of a name they were previously known as is clearly very seriously unwell.

The stuff about the paper on the glass tells us a lot.

Well, we all are.

The time spent by NHS staff, HR department, the court tribunal costs, etc.

It is free for anyone to bring a case to tribunal, there is no cost (unless they choose to employ representatives). But the cost to the party defending can be enormous.

In the same vein a grievance factories would one stop grievance shop be worth adding to the canon?

It reads a little like something from an episode of The Office

We are. And even more grimly ironic is that if you are both a taxpayer and a donator to GC crowdfunders, you're paying for both sides.

I think we're looking at mass output here. One stop might not be enough!

The claimant had formal legal representation so there must have been significant cost in this particular case

I was wondering about that. This demonstrates that at least some lawyers believe that non-binary identities are included under the PC of gender reassignment.

Exactly this. She is clearly profoundly unwell and seems to be a drain on her employer (paid for by taxpayers)

What I mean is, the taxpayer is funding the tribunal, the court costs, etc. Which will be huge.

In this case, we are funding the tribunal running costs, plus the NHS' costs to defend (which will be in the thousands).

There is an early screening to check whether a claimant has a case or not: in many instances, this seems not to work. For example, I think if someone tries to take someone to tribunal based on things like 'they only said 'hi' to me in the corridor', or 'their apology was insufficient when they accidentally misgendered me', this should not be allowed to go to tribunal.

I wondered about this.

Because a huge number of the judgements on the website seem to be struck out for non engaged claimants for eg. This could surely be needed out earlier.

i can’t think of an instance of an ET throwing out a discrimination claim for having no reasonable prospects of success, it’s incredibly rare even when hopeless.

First tier tribunals don't set precedent. Should Ms Lockwood choose to appeal, the appeal verdict would set precedent.

This seems a waste of everyone's time?

I lean more toward the Scottish “ch.”

It looks like this person still works in this role, with these colleagues 🤯🫣

Imagine

I guess it's a human right to bring a case if you think you have one and can fund it, but I agree, this one was flimsier than the paper Haech stuck on the glass panel. There has to be a way for a panel to say "Come on, you're having a laugh here" without taking up days of court time and thousands of pounds of public money? Surely?

(Oh and I realised, reading back, that I assumed RMW was acting for the claimant. It's very interesting that that's not the case.)

yes it is

better use of preliminary hearings and deposit orders are needed to eliminate claims and free up capacity

Private businesses have to avoid these sorts of employees if they have any sense. The drain on profit is obvious to all.

Unfortunately this means they all end up in the public sector, where they are welcomed as symbols of inclusion and kindness for the organisation. Then the tax payer ends up paying for the inevitable catastrophe when every other colleague is pushed to their absolute limits by the daily batshittery and so the disciplinaries begin.

Thank you, that's what I meant, don't have the right terminology.

The best thing about this is that if other ETs decide the same way is that it’s not going to be illegal to refuse to employ these self absorbed twats

Some tribunal claims are taken on on a no win no fee basis, but this particular case doesn't seem like a likely candidate for that.

🍿 I hope so, to set some nice clear precedent.

Exactly and I'm also thinking of people who don't have English as a first language too, it must be doubly difficult to have to navigate this nonsense.