The Force appealed findings of sex discrimination against the respondent who had undergone gender reassignment. She required the fact of the procedure to be kept secret. The force refused her application for appointment since they said she would be unable to conduct searches, which were required in law to be by officers of the same sex as the person to be searched. She asserted that others would be able to conduct such searches.
Held: The force had treated the applicant in the same way they would have dealt with a female to male gender assignee. The Act was clearly not intended to cope with these issues, but it must do so. It appeared implicit from the Tribunal’s decision that the Force could be required to hold the applicant out to detainees and members of the public as female, when in law she remains a male. The tribunal erred. Adjusting to the applicant’s requirements would be require unacceptable alterations, and the applicants requirements as to privacy were conflicting. However the incidence of physical searches was so low as to be not relevant.
EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President)
Citations:
EAT/231/00, EAT/661/99, [2002] ICR 552, [2001] UKEAT 661 – 99 – 0210
Links:
Statutes:
Sex Discrimination Act 1975 7, Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations 1999
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – 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 – Corbett v Corbett (otherwise Ashley) FD 1-Feb-1970
There had been a purported marriage in 1963 between a man and a male to female trans-sexual.
Held: Because marriage is essentially a union between a man and a woman, the relationship depended on sex, and not on gender. The law should adopt the . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – A v Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police and Another CA 5-Nov-2002
The appellant had undergone a male to female sex change, but was refused employment by the respondent before the Human Rights Act came into effect.
Held: Although the Human Rights Act could not apply, the act was in breach of the Equal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination, Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168330