The claimant was an engineer with the respondent.  In 2017, Ms Taylor identified as being gender fluid and non-binary.   At that time, she began to dress regularly in women’s clothing.   As a result of this, the claimant was subjected to abusive jokes at work and had received insults from other work colleagues.    There were also practical difficulties faced such as a lack of managerial support and difficulties in using the toilet facilities offered to staff.    As a result of this she brought a range of claims including direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation under the ground of gender reassignment.   There were issues in relation to complying with the time limit for presenting the claim but as there was a continuing course of harassment it was held that it was just and equitable for them to be deemed within time.

In terms of the substance of the dispute, the respondent argued that gender fluidity or being non-binary did not fall within Section 7 of the Equality Act 2010 which gave the ground of gender reassignment rather than one that was fluid.   The Tribunal acknowledged that considering the interpretation to be given to the legislation for gender reassignment and whether it applied to those who were gender fluid was one that was novel.  For that reason, there was consideration of the Parliamentary Debates that took place prior to the passing of the Equality Act 2010.  It was important that the Solicitor-General noted that there was a ‘spectrum’ to be considered in relation to gender and that the reassignment was moving the identity away from the birth sex.   As there was this notion that gender was more than a binary choice (regardless of reassignment) and that there was a spectrum it led to the Tribunal to find that where someone who was non-binary and gender fluid they would be protected by Section 7 of the 2010 Act in relation to protecting those who have had gender reassignment.   For this reason, there was the protection to the claimant as a result of being gender fluid and the claims for discrimination, harassment and victimisation were upheld.    A rememdy hearing is to be held in October 2020 to determine the level of compensation to be awarded.

Practical Lessons

This case is interesting from the perspective of the interpretation of ‘gender reassignment’ in the legislation.  There is a wider definition to be given as it is not purely based upon a strict ‘reassignment’ but rather captures the wider spectrum of ‘genders’ that may be seen within the workplace.  For this reason, there has been a significant widening in the scope of protection for those who may be moving away from their birth gender.  This will be important for the use of the Equality Act 2010 but it must be remembered that the 2010 Act does not apply in NI. This seems to demonstrate a deviation between England and Wales and Northern Ireland as the Equality Act 2010 removed the need for ‘medical supervision’ which is still required under Article 2 of the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

http://www.oldsquare.co.uk/images/uploads/news-and-media/1304471.18_Ms_R_Taylor_V_JLR_Ltd.Jmt.140920.pdf