An employee at an educational establishment told management that he intended to undergo gender reassignment. He was given notice of dismissal.
Held: The scope of the Directive was not confined to discrimination based on the fact that a person was of one or other sex but also extended to discrimination arising from the gender reassignment of a person. The Court stated: ‘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. 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 Advocate General described the applicant as female: ‘I do so regardless not only of her original sex (male) as it appears on her birth certificate but also of the moment at which, as a result of the final surgical operation, she actually changed her physical sex.’
C-13/94,  ICR 795,  IRLR 347,  EUECJ C-13/94,  All ER (EC) 397,  2 FCR 180,  2 CMLR 247,  CEC 574,  ECR I-2143,  2 FLR 347,  Fam Law 609
Council Directive 76/207/EEC
Distinguished – Ashton v The Chief Constable of West Mercia Constabulary EAT 27-Jul-2000
Where a dismissal was properly related to poor work performance, the fact that such a deterioration in performance was associated with a gender reassignment process being undergone by the employee, did not make the dismissal sex discrimination. To . .
Cited – Croft v Royal Mail Group Plc (formerly Consignia Group plc) CA 18-Jul-2003
The employee was a transsexual, awaiting completion of surgical transformation to a woman. The employer said she could not use the female toilet facilities, but was offered use of the unisex disabled facilities.
Held: The 1975 Act provides for . .
Cited – A v West Yorkshire Police HL 6-May-2004
The claimant was a male to female trans-sexual who had been refused employment as a police officer by the respondent, who had said that the staturory requirement for males to search males and for females to search females would be impossible to . .
Cited – J v S T (Formerly J) CA 21-Nov-1996
The parties had married, but the male partner was a transsexual, having been born female and having undergone treatment for Gender Identity Dysphoria. After IVF treatment, the couple had a child. As the marriage broke down the truth was revealed in . .
Applied – Chessington World of Adventures Ltd v Reed EAT 27-Jun-1997
News Group Newspapers Ltd had been joined as a party, in order that it could argue the obvious public interest relating to the importance, which has long been accepted in the courts, of the interest, not just of the press but of the public . .
Cited – Goodwin v The United Kingdom ECHR 11-Jul-2002
The claimant was a post operative male to female trans-sexual. She claimed that her human rights were infringed when she was still treated as a man for National Insurance contributions purposes, where she continued to make payments after the age at . .
Cited – MB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 5-Jul-2016
The court was asked about the age at which entitlement to a pension began for someone of transgender.
Held: The court was divided, and the issue was referred to the European Court of Justice. . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 January 2021; Ref: scu.161269