The case concerned a United Kingdom (UK) trans woman, referred to as P in court proceedings, who was dismissed from her post after informing her employers that she was undergoing gender reassignment. She took her employers to an Employment Tribunal. The Tribunal agreed that she had been dismissed because of her gender reassignment, but was unable to rule that she had been discriminated against because at that time the Sex Discrimination Act (SDA) offered little protection to transsexual people. If P had been a trans man, he would have been treated in the same way and so there were no grounds in the SDA to rule that P had been discriminated against.[3] However, the UK was part of the European Community and thus obliged to implement the Equal Treatment Directive. The Tribunal felt the scope of the Directive was wider than that of the SDA and accordingly asked the ECJ for a preliminary ruling. Effectively, the Tribunal asked the Court to rule whether the Directive precluded dismissal of a transsexual for a reason related to his or her gender reassignment.[4]
The Court, assisted by an influential opinion from Advocate GeneralTesauro, ruled that the Directive was an expression of a fundamental principle of equality and thus that the Directive did indeed preclude dismissal for a reason related to gender reassignment.[5] The Tribunal was able to rule in P's favour and P received compensation from her employers.[6]
It was the first piece of case law, anywhere in the world, which prevents discrimination in employment or vocational education because someone is transsexual.[7] The scope of the ruling is considered as applying to transsexuals "intending to undergo, undergoing or [who] have undergone gender reassignment".[8] However, the Court left open the question of employment where the natal sex or its continuity was a constitutive element in the employee's job.[9] In UK law this is reflected in the Equality Act 2010 where transsexuals can be barred from gender-specific services if that is "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim".[10]
Facts and Procedure
P was a male to female transgender woman who worked as a senior manager in an educational establishment maintained by Cornwall County Council. She started her employment as a man on 1 April 1991. In April 1992, she informed S, Chief Executive of the establishment, that she intended to undergo gender reassignment. She explained to S that she was to undertake a "life test", an initial period of a year living as a woman. That summer P took sick leave for initial surgery. At the beginning of September 1992, she was given three months notice of dismissal. She was not allowed to return to work as a woman. Final surgery took place before the notice of dismissal had expired. On 3 March 1993, P brought an action before TruroEmployment Tribunal, complaining that she had been discriminated against on the grounds of sex. Both S and Cornwall County Council maintained the termination was due to redundancy.[7][9][11]
The Tribunal determined that although there was redundancy within P's establishment, the sole and exclusive reason for her dismissal was her gender reassignment. The Tribunal found this situation was not covered by the Sex Discrimination Act. However, article 1(1) of the Equal Treatment Directive states that the purpose of the Directive is to put into effect the principle of equal treatment for men and women, while article 2(1) of the Directive provides that the principle of equal treatment means that there is to be "no discrimination whatsoever on grounds of sex, either directly or indirectly". Moreover, recital 3 in the preamble to the Directive asserts that equal treatment for men and women constitutes one of the objectives of the European Community. The Tribunal considered the scope of the Directive could thus possibly extend to the protection of transsexuals and decided to stay proceedings and refer that interpretation of the Directive to the European Court of Justice. The Court responded in its judgment of 30 April 1996.[7][9][11]
Advocate General's opinion
The opinion of the Advocate General is distinct from the judgment of the Court and has an advisory character. In an influential opinion, Advocate General Tesauro stressed the need for the law to keep pace with the times.[12][13]
24 ... I am well aware that I am asking the Court to make a `courageous' decision. I am asking it to do so, however, in the profound conviction that what is at stake is a universal fundamental value, indelibly etched in modern legal traditions and in the constitutions of the more advanced countries: the irrelevance of a person's sex with regard to the rules regulating relations in society. Whosoever believes in that value cannot accept the idea that a law should permit a person to be dismissed because she is a woman, or because he is a man, or because he or she changes from one of the two sexes (whichever it may be) to the other by means of an operation which - according to current medical knowledge - is the only remedy capable of bringing body and mind into harmony. Any other solution would sound like a moral condemnation - a condemnation, moreover, out of step with the times - of transsexuality, precisely when scientific advances and social change in this area are opening a perspective on the problem which certainly transcends the moral one ...
The Court ruled that the Equal Treatment Directive was an expression of a fundamental principle of equality and that the Directive precluded dismissal for a reason related to gender reassignment.[5]
17. The principle of equal treatment "for men and women" to which the directive refers in its title, preamble and provisions means, as Articles 2(1) and 3(1) in particular indicate, that there should be "no discrimination whatsoever on grounds of sex".
18. Thus, the directive is simply the expression, in the relevant field, of the principle of equality, which is one of the fundamental principles of Community law.
19. Moreover, as the Court has repeatedly held, the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of sex is one of the fundamental human rights whose observance the Court has a duty to ensure ...
20. Accordingly, the scope of the directive cannot be confined simply to discrimination based on the fact that a person is of one or other sex. In view of its purpose and the nature of the rights which it seeks to safeguard, the scope of the directive is also such as to apply to discrimination arising, as in this case, from the gender reassignment of the person concerned.
21. Such discrimination is based, essentially if not exclusively, on the sex of the person concerned. Where a person is dismissed on the ground that he or she intends to undergo, or has undergone, gender reassignment, he or she is treated unfavourably by comparison with persons of the sex to which he or she was deemed to belong before undergoing gender reassignment.
22. To tolerate such discrimination would be tantamount, as regards such a person, to a failure to respect the dignity and freedom to which he or she is entitled, and which the Court has a duty to safeguard.
The Court noted that Article 2(2) of the Directive, relating to occupations where the sex of the worker was a determining factor, could be used to justify such a dismissal, but that there was no evidence this was so in P's case.[14][lower-alpha 1]
Commentary
Catherine Barnard considers the judgment important both for its broad approach to the principle of equality and for recognising both the moral and economic significance of the principle. She discusses the potential of the judgment as well as the barriers to implementing its potential.[16]
Eva Brems sets the judgment in the context of the national legislation of many European countries and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights of the time, which showed a moral consensus for maximum legal recognition of transsexuals, for example in the matter of marriage law and of privacy issues in relation to recording the natal sex on birth certificates.[17]
Chalmers et al. note that P v S, along with Defrenne v Sabena, were amongst the first ECJ cases to acknowledge that the principle of equal treatment set out in Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) enshrines a fundamental right.[18][19] They discuss KB v National Health Service Pensions Agency, where the Court left it the UK national courts to determine whether a transsexual could rely on his rights under Article 157 in a matter relating to assigning survivor's pension rights. They note that the Court's reluctance to fully engage with the complexities of gender identity is matched by the relatively timid revision at recital 3 of the Equal Treatment Directive (2006), which refers only to discrimination arising from gender reassignment.[20][21][lower-alpha 2]
↑ Article 2(2) of the Directive provides " [The] Directive shall be without prejudice to the right of Member States to exclude from its field of application those occupational activities and, where appropriate, the training leading thereto, for which, by reason of their nature or the context in which they are carried out, the sex of the worker constitutes a determining factor."[15]
↑ Recital 3 of the 2006 revised Equal Treatment Directive states "The Court of Justice has held that the scope of the principle of equal treatment for men and women cannot be confined to the prohibition of discrimination based on the fact that a person is of one or other sex. In view of its purpose and the nature of the rights which it seeks to safeguard, it also applies to discrimination arising from the gender reassignment of a person."[20]
The legal status of transgender people varies greatly around the world. Some countries have enacted laws protecting the rights of transgender individuals, but others have criminalized their gender identity or expression. In many cases, transgender individuals face discrimination in employment, housing, healthcare, and other areas of life.
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which protected men and women from discrimination on the grounds of sex or marital status. The Act concerned employment, training, education, harassment, the provision of goods and services, and the disposal of premises.
Anti-discrimination law or non-discrimination law refers to legislation designed to prevent discrimination against particular groups of people; these groups are often referred to as protected groups or protected classes. Anti-discrimination laws vary by jurisdiction with regard to the types of discrimination that are prohibited, and also the groups that are protected by that legislation. Commonly, these types of legislation are designed to prevent discrimination in employment, housing, education, and other areas of social life, such as public accommodations. Anti-discrimination law may include protections for groups based on sex, age, race, ethnicity, nationality, disability, mental illness or ability, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity/expression, sex characteristics, religion, creed, or individual political opinions.
Corbett v Corbett (otherwise Ashley) is a 1970 family law divorce case heard between November and December 1969 by the High Court of England and Wales in which Arthur Corbett sought annulment of his marriage to April Ashley. Corbett (the husband) had known at the time of the wedding that Ashley (the wife) had been registered male at birth and had undertaken sex-reassignment surgery. However, after the relationship had broken down, Corbett sought to end the marriage, his legal ground for doing so being that the marriage had been invalid, as Ashley was of the male sex.
United Kingdom employment equality law is a body of law which legislates against prejudice-based actions in the workplace. As an integral part of UK labour law it is unlawful to discriminate against a person because they have one of the "protected characteristics", which are, age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, sex, pregnancy and maternity, and sexual orientation. The primary legislation is the Equality Act 2010, which outlaws discrimination in access to education, public services, private goods and services, transport or premises in addition to employment. This follows three major European Union Directives, and is supplement by other Acts like the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Furthermore, discrimination on the grounds of work status, as a part-time worker, fixed term employee, agency worker or union membership is banned as a result of a combination of statutory instruments and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, again following European law. Disputes are typically resolved in the workplace in consultation with an employer or trade union, or with advice from a solicitor, ACAS or the Citizens Advice Bureau a claim may be brought in an employment tribunal. The Equality Act 2006 established the Equality and Human Rights Commission, a body designed to strengthen enforcement of equality laws.
The Employment Equality Regulations 2003 were secondary legislation in the United Kingdom, which prohibited employers unreasonably discriminating against employees on grounds of sexual orientation, perceived sexual orientation, religion or belief and age.
The Equality Act 2010 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed during the Brown ministry with the primary purpose of consolidating, updating and supplementing the numerous prior Acts and Regulations, that formed the basis of anti-discrimination law in mostly England, Scotland and Wales; some sections also apply to Northern Ireland. These consisted, primarily, of the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and three major statutory instruments protecting discrimination in employment on grounds of religion or belief, sexual orientation and age.
Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College (2004) C-256/01 is a European Union law case concerning the right of men and women to equal pay for work of equal value under Article 141 of the Treaty of the European Community.
Coleman v Attridge Law (2008) C-303/06 is an employment law case heard by the European Court of Justice. The question is whether the European Union's discrimination policy covers not just people who are disabled but people who suffer discrimination because they are related or connected to disabled people. At the beginning of 2008, Advocate General Maduro delivered his opinion, supporting an inclusive approach. He said discrimination law is there to combat all forms of discrimination, including those connected to protected groups of people.
Christine Burns is a British political activist best known for her work with Press for Change and, more recently, as an internationally recognised health adviser. Burns was awarded an MBE in 2005 in recognition of her work representing transgender people. In 2011, she ranked 35th on the Independent on Sunday's annual Pink List of influential lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in the United Kingdom.
Equality and diversity is a term used in the United Kingdom to define and champion equality, diversity and human rights as defining values of society. It promotes equality of opportunity for all, giving every individual the chance to achieve their potential, free from prejudice and discrimination.
Transsexual people experience a gender identity that is inconsistent with their assigned sex, and desire to permanently transition to the sex or gender with which they identify, usually seeking medical assistance to help them align their body with their identified sex or gender.
Mangold v Helm (2005) C-144/04 was a case before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) about age discrimination in employment.
Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co KG (2010) C-555/07 is a leading EU labour law case, which held that there is a general principle of law in all European Union member states, against discrimination, and in favour of equal treatment.
Hall v Woolston Hall Leisure Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 170 is a UK labour law case, concerning the illegality in the contract of employment.
Marshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire Area Health Authority (1986) Case 152/84 is an EU law case, concerning the conflict of law between a national legal system and European Union law.
Transgender rights in the United Kingdom have varied significantly over time, with the British transgender community facing ongoing challenges not experienced by cisgender Britons. These include various laws and public attitudes in regards to identity documents, as well as anti-discrimination measures used by or pertaining to transgender people, in the areas of employment, education, housing and social services, amongst others.
This article addresses the legal and regulatory history of transgender and transsexual people in the United States including case law and governmental regulatory action affecting their legal status and privileges, at the federal, state, municipal, and local level, and including military justice as well.
Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover Ltd was a UK employment tribunal court case in 2020 that ruled that non-binary gender and genderfluid identities fall under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment in the Equality Act 2010.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
