In this case, the claimant, a transgender woman, succeeded in her claims for direct discrimination and harassment under the Equality Act 2010 in relation to gender reassignment. 

The claimant has identified as a woman for approximately 16 years. Her birth name is ‘Alexander’ yet she is known as ‘Alexandra’. She began working as a sales assistant in Primark in September 2016. 

At interview she relayed her personal details to management, explaining she was transgender. The interviewer said they had to use her official name for pay purposes, but she could use whatever name she liked on her name badge. On the morning of her induction the claimant was given a name badge citing her birth name. She asked to speak to the HR supervisor carrying out the induction in private in order to address the mistake, yet little was done to ensure the issue of her transgender status and how it should be sensitively handled in the future. 

During the course of her employment, the claimant encountered a number of incidents with her colleagues. One of her supervisors, Ms Chiamonwu, referred to her by her birth name in front of customers and continued to do so for a period of time despite the claimant correcting her. A fellow retail assistant, Ms Amboyo, sprayed a scent near the claimant, stating ‘I can smell urine, like a men’s toilet’ and discussing with Ms Namusobo that ‘it’s a man’s voice’ and ‘deep voice’. Another colleague, Ms Browne, authorised a male electrician to enter the ladies staff toilets as ‘there were no ladies in there’, despite the fact she knew the claimant was using the restroom. Moreover, her colleagues laughed at her and made a number of humiliating and degrading comments about her, stating they would pray for her as ‘she’s got evil inside her…she’s a joke…the joke of the shop…she is evil’. 

The claimant sought to raise a formal grievance in relation to the discrimination and harassment that she was subjected to on a number of occasions. The department manager subsequently interviewed her and the other employees yet she was not informed of an outcome or given an avenue for redress or an opportunity to appeal. 

The claimant subsequently went on sick leave due to stress. She reported her complaints to the police and advised HR that she would not return to work unless action was taken to address the situation, pronouncing an intention to resign. She was invited to attend an investigatory interview to establish the facts around her absence, and strangely in the interim she was named employee of the month. There was a flagrant failure by the respondent company to make any attempts to remedy the situation, even after they became aware of its seriousness. 

It was held the claimant was constructively dismissed owing to direct gender reassignment discrimination and harassment. The respondents failed to properly investigate the matter and deal with it appropriately, and failed to notify her of the outcome of her grievance or advise her of the right of appeal.

She was awarded £47,433.03, which included a sum of £25,000 for injury to feelings. The Tribunal recommended the respondent adopt a written policy on how to deal with new or existing staff who are transgender or who wish to undergo gender reassignment; amend any materials used for equality training to include references to transgender discrimination; and add into training manuals the importance of the consistent application of grievance policies.