header-logo header-logo

26 January 2024 / Sapandeep Singh Maini-Thompson
Issue: 8056 / Categories: Features , Employment , Equality , Discrimination
printer mail-detail

Workplace protection for trans people

154935
Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic, but it’s not that simple, writes Sapandeep Singh Maini-Thompson
  • The Equality Act 2010, s 7 encompasses non-binary and gender-fluid identities.
  • Identifying as trans-gender is not sufficient to acquire the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Something more is required.
  • There are two competing approaches to identifying the correct comparator in section 7 cases.

Section 7 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA) protects against discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment. But who exactly does this protect and in what circumstances? What is the relationship between gender reassignment and sex? And who is the correct comparator for a person bringing a claim of discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment?

The scope of section 7

The protected characteristic (PC) of gender reassignment is defined by the Equality Act 2010 as follows: ‘A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll