It seems we have had a flurry of employment tribunal cases relating to trans people in the workplace, so it is good to see them start to go right.
Many headline-grabbing cases are misunderstood. When they do succeed, it is rarely because excluding transgender people was necessary, but for wholly different legal reasons.
In this case, reported by the BBC1, the female worker objected to the work toilet policy which allowed transgender females to use the female toilet.
She was claiming harassment and sex discrimination - and lost.
It is an important cases because the judge went on to say that there is no evidence that trans women are a threat to women if they use female facilities. It is also important because it stands by the need for there to be an inclusive workplace environment for trans staff.
I also want to explain the key legal test in UK equality law. It asks two questions:
Is the employer trying to achieve something legitimate?
In this case, creating an inclusive workplace where transgender staff can access toilets safely and without harassment was found to be a legitimate aim.
Is the way they are doing it proportionate?
Proportionate means: balanced, reasonable, and not going further than necessary to achieve that aim.
The tribunal decided that Leonardo’s policy passed both tests because:
The company wasn’t banning women from toilets, removing facilities, or forcing anyone into unsafe spaces.
Women still had choices: nearby toilets, more private toilets elsewhere, and an accessible toilet.
Only one person complained, so there was no evidence that women as a group were placed at a disadvantage.
Allowing trans women to use the toilets was a mild, non-intrusive step compared with the harm trans employees might face if excluded.
Because the firm took reasonable steps that balanced everyone’s rights, the tribunal said the policy was proportionate.
Well done to this employer - and a sage warning to other employers that if they had banned all trans women from the women’s toilets and the trans woman had complained, there might have been a different finding.
Exclusion is never OK unless you can prove that is is necessary for a very good reason.
Over to You
I’d love to hear your thoughts. Please subscribe to share them in the comments below.
This is part of a series examining cases, commentary and hearings concerning gender identity. If you have a case or article you’d like me to review, get in touch.
https://www-bbc-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ge29yl7zdo.amp