Background: 

The claimant gave eight months’ notice to her employer that she was intending to transition.  This transition came into effect from 1st July 2020.  She complained that there was no support from her employer who had failed in its duty of care towards her.  She argued that there had been a failure to follow internal policies such as the Equality and Diversity Policy Statement and the Dignity at Work Policy.   It was noted by the Tribunal that these documents were of some vintage and they did not make reference to the Equality Act 2010. For example, references to gender reassignment were characterised as sexual harassment rather than being in line with it as a separate protected characteristic.  Between this case being issued and the decision it was noted that the respondent had developed a specific trans equality policy which had been developed in consultation with the claimant.  

The basis of the claim largely centred upon the concept of ‘deadnaming’ whereby an individual is referred to by the previous name rather than the new name adopted following transition.  This led to formal complaints and grievances being made by the claimant.  The examples of deadnaming came with the fact that there were difficulties in changing her name for pension records and her name on the internal systems of the respondent.  Additionally, at her locker space the deadname was just crossed out with the new name written rather than a new note being added.  The difficulty with this is that it ‘outed’ the claimant and this also occurred with third party agents leading to being misgendered on the telephone. 

Outcome: 

The respondent had agreed that there had been issues of deadnaming as outlined above.   There were other issues raised in relation to how the claimant was treated at work which were not found to have been made out by the claimant.   On the issue of the deadnaming it was found that it did amount to direct discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment.  As a result, the Tribunal awarded £21,000 for injury to feelings. This being in the middle band of Vento. 

Practical Guidance for Employers: 

This case demonstrates how crucial it is to have internal policies that are up-to-date.  In this situation, the policies were outdated and pre-dated the legislative reforms that had taken place in England and Wales.   This led to difficulties with systems in dealing with matters as arose in this case.  Employers ought to consider Equality policies and specific policies in relation to employees who are transitioning.  This would include matters such as the name and how the name can be changed within internal systems. 

The full case is available here: 
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6527c172aea2d0000d219c25/Miss_AB_v_Royal_Borough_of_Kingston_upon_Thames_2303616-2021_Anonymised_Judgment_11.09.2023.pdf