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."

Holy shit. On P10 Haech couldn't even identify which of two nurses at a clinic 'misgendered' her so BOTH offered full apologies, and that still wasn't enough for the controlling little shite.

Are we assuming that RMW does or doesn't want non-binary people to be included in the PC of gender reassignment?

I would have thought publicly the the former, privately the latter.

In v v short, one of the lay panel members in SM case vs BFF was introduced as a Prof and had a sign in front of her during the tribunal calling her Prof. NC suggested it was off for a Prof to not have much history online and that she may have scrubbed stuff ie trying to hide bias....and then we were off! Turns out that Prof isn't a Prof, or Dr but that both have been used for her for decades in Committee notes, parliamentary minutes etc. She also claims to be a judge once.

She left school at 16 and has no genuine claim to the ways she introduces and ask to be addressed.

Preferred means of address gorn maaaad!

Anyway, she stepped down due to Fibromyalgia and the whole thing has not been formally addressed.

The problem I have with this is that I think it demonstrates that the definition of gender reassignment under the Equality Act is fundamentally flawed and doesn’t actually cover anyone if analysed properly. A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex. Now we know sex here means biological sex. But humans can’t ‘reassign’ their biological sex. And how can there be ‘attributes of sex’ that are anything other than physiological if sex means biological sex?
it has never sat right with me (and I am a lawyer) that ‘attributes of sex’ means things like wearing your hair long, wearing a dress, putting on make up. Those aren’t attributes of my biological sex, they are just things that some people who share my biological sex do sometimes and equally most don’t sometimes.

RMW was involved in the Taylor case arguing the opposite and cites that involvement and case as a headline.

Examples of recent cases include

• Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover. (Birmingham Employment Tribunal) Landmark case establishing that gender-fluid and non-binary individuals protected by the Equality Act

oldsquare.co.uk/people/robin-white/

Was going to say this. Unlike SP and the Darlington nurses.

Taylor was a terrible decision though. And bollocks to landmark it’s only tribunal level so zero precedent value. And by terrible I mean very badly reasoned not just that I disagree with the outcome

Shouldn't this be made clear?

It is such a shame that so much of this happens under the radar.

There's no transcript, no TT, no NW and zero media and yet this is a very important case with huge relevance to other cases.

This judgement clearly states that it is pre FWS and therefore no longer of relevance too.

But I can't see that that would mean RMW has completely changed opinion. I dont remember RMW agreeing with the FWS outcome publicly?

I think I might be assuming a level of coherence in RMW's views that doesn't exist. I have heard him arguing about the relevance of surgery, but had forgotten about RMW's involvement in the code of practice that banned the 'misgendering' of rapists with sudden onset post arrest gender dysphoria.

A considerable number of cases where people have been discriminated against for their GC beliefs revolve at least in part around “enbies”.

Roz Adams
Jo Phoenix
Maya Forstater

and mentioned in others

Make of that what you will

DM clearly read on here.

Non-binary NHS worker sues Trust after being 'dead named' and mis-pronouned, but judges say they don't have to take offence at everything!

https://share.google/1E5ZrHVUtboUss4Iv

No time to read comments, but many many thanks for posting this info. Below is the Decision which is good to read as it shows there is still some sanity in the world. (I wish they would provide plain text versions as pdf files are terrible to copy from. But in this case worth the trouble!)

Decision

92. The claimant is non binary. Their sex at birth was female. They have no intention to transition to the male sex. They have changed their name by deed poll to Haech and live under that name. They have the preferred pronouns of they/them. The claimant intends taking no other steps to change their sex, medical or otherwise.

93. The starting point are the words of the Statute itself. The Supreme Court emphasised in For Women Scotland that “sex” within the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex. As such sex is a binary concept, male and female. The question we consider that this Tribunal needs to answer in this case, is what does “for the purpose of reassigning the claimant’s sex” mean following For Women Scotland.

94. In essence, what journey does section 7 require the claimant to be on for them to have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. There is no doubt that the claimant has embarked upon a journey by changing their name by deed poll, living under that name and asking that others use their preferred pronouns of they and them, but is it for the purpose of reassigning their sex?

95. The Supreme Court reminded us of the general rule that there should be a consistent meaning given to a word or term used more than once in the same legislation and that the general purpose of an interpretation provision is to fix the meaning of such word or term throughout the legislation in question. (paragraph 76). It notes than the circumstances in which that presumption may be rebutted will be rare.

96. The word “reassigning” in our view means a move from one thing to another. We have considered dictionary definitions such as in Collins: Reassign/verb (transitive)to move (personnel, resources, etc) to a new post, department, location, etc

97. It requires a from and a to. As sex is binary, that process has to be with the intention of changing from one sex to the other. In our view it is not sufficient for the claimant to be moving from away from the female sex, to qualify for the protection within section 7, they need to have the purpose of reassigning their sex to that of the opposite sex.

98. On our reading of section 7 Equality Act 2010 in light of the clear direction from the Supreme Court that sex is biological sex and as such is binary, the journey can only be from one sex to the other.

99. We consider that there is no ambiguity in section 7, such that we need to invoke Pepper v Hart and the more recent authorities in that vein. Mr Justice Chamberlain in R(AA) v NHS England was of the same view. We note particularly that the later authorities have insisted on strict observance of these conditions. As such it is not necessary for us to refer to Hansard and the debates which Ms Widdette has reminded us of.

100. We do not think that Taylor and R(AA) v NHS England assist us. Both cases were decided before For Women Scotland. In both decisions all claimants had originally sought to move from one sex to the other and the focus in both cases was upon what “proposing to undergo” meant within section 7. We consider that in this case, that is not the question we need to consider.

101. In both decisions however there is reference to moving away from birth sex, which it is appropriate that we consider. In R(AA) v NHS England, Mr Justice Chamberlian says: “The word “proposing” connotes a conscious decision, which can properly be described as settled, to adopt some aspect of the identity of a gender different from assigned at birth” (our emphasis) (though goes on to say at “(Para 33) when referring to a child satisfying the definition in section 7.. “provided they have taken a settled decision to adopt some aspect of the identity of the other gender.” (our emphasis)) and in Taylor the Tribunal refers to the process requiring a move away from birth sex.

102. The only reference that the Tribunal has found to indicate that a process to move away from birth sex is sufficient to meet the definition within section 7 (rather than it being a process to move from one sex to the other) is the EHRC Code of Practice on Employment, which the EHRC are in the process of updating following For Women Scotland and as such we consider is of limited assistance.

103. We have carefully considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland and believe that there is nothing in the judgment which suggests that our view is incorrect. Paragraph 99 of the judgment as set out above, clarifies that it is the process of reassignment which section 7 is protecting, when explaining that sex and gender reassignment are “distinct and separate bases for discrimination and inequality, giving separate protection to each”. That does not however detract from our view that the process still requires the purpose of the reassignment of sex.

104. 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.

106. Although having made this finding, it is not incumbent upon is to consider the harassment complaint, we have done so at the request of the parties.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6926ec33a245b0985f0340aa/HaechLockwood_vCheshireandWirralNHSFoundationTrustandothers2401211202424071782024.pdf

The panel in this case seem to have decided that Taylor does not apply because claimant has not adopted any male 'attributes' and has declared that she positively intends not to. NB is her destination, not part of a spectrum along which she is travelling (para 103-104)

I would love to know if a trade union funded the case.

And my heart sank reading it all. Must have made for very difficult working relationships.

If I found a colleague taping paper over a window so another colleague couldn't see them I would be insisting on driving them home immediately and watching them call their GP and the Crisis Team.

That person absolutely did not appear mentally well enough to be at work. Any sort of work, let alone providing mental health therapy to others.

That's good. The more awareness the better of how some people are weaponising NB and other false "identities" to intimidate colleagues and make the workplace a hostile environment.

I would like to know that too.

If rhe DM are reading this, they could do a bit of digging.

It is of great relevance to those of us who pay union fees knowing we could not seek support from them.

Thank you for sharing.

I hope they'll be sending me a little something for doing half their work for them 🤣

Did someone say Bundle?

Noooooooooo

Not the incantation @stopbringingmicehome

I'm only on page 10 of the tribunal decision and realise I'm way behind but I just want to say the woman complaining needs a bloody good shake. Is there anything she doesn't take offence at?

Main character syndrome is strong in they/them!

You wonder who she has close and who she was getting advice from.

Someone should have pointed out some basic facts here. And definitely should have pointed out that the informal grievance resulted in apologies, acknowledgement and actions and maybe to stop there?

Oh no, you know that means I'm now going to have to go and read all the TTs and the many threads... it sounds juicy!