Gender Transition – Deadnamed Employee Wins Substantial Compensation

Those who undergo the challenging process of gender transition are entitled to their employers’ full understanding and support in establishing their new identity. A local authority which woefully failed in that obligation by persistently deadnaming a transitioning employee was ordered to pay her…

Oct 18, 2023

Pexels ivan samkov 7213192 1024x683

Those who undergo the challenging process of gender transition are entitled to their employers’ full understanding and support in establishing their new identity. A local authority which woefully failed in that obligation by persistently deadnaming a transitioning employee was ordered to pay her substantial compensation.

The woman gave the council eight months’ notice of her intention to transition. She subsequently launched Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings, alleging numerous acts of direct discrimination contrary to Section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. She claimed, amongst other things, that the council entirely failed to support her in achieving acceptance of her new, gender appropriate name.

The council accepted that its Dignity at Work Policy had not at the relevant time been updated to reflect the requirements of the Act. It admitted that, for a period of about two years following the woman’s transition, it failed to update her name on its pension records, staff directory or complaints system. For many months, her door pass also continued to bear her former name.

Ruling on the matter, the ET noted that the council has thousands of employees and a human resources department numbering around 60. Given those resources, the failure to have an up-to-date policy in place was surprising. No appropriate staff training on trans issues was provided. The woman was left to navigate the council’s complex systems with no support, or even signposting, from human resources.

The council said that it had learned a lesson with regard to deadnaming and that more support would in future be provided to transitioning employees. The ET found, however, that its policies and practices at the relevant time were woefully inadequate and that the woman understandably felt badly let down.

In awarding her £21,000 in compensation for injury to her feelings, the ET noted the council’s apparent failure to formally apologise for its lengthy delay in addressing the deadnaming issue. That added to her distress and, whilst she had thankfully made a good recovery, deadnaming was a contributory factor in her very significant period of psychiatric ill health. She was also awarded £4,423 in interest.

Poultry Workers Not Entitled to NMW for Travel to Farms

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that poultry workers were not ‘working’ while travelling from their homes to farms where they carried out their duties and back again, and were not entitled to be paid the National Minimum Wage (NMW) for the time spent travelling. The employees worked on poultry farms around the country. Their employer provided a minibus to collect them from their home addresses each day and take them to the first farm, and take them home again from the last farm.…

Running a Business Via Group Chats and Instant Messaging Has Its Pitfalls

Business owners who use social media group chats or instant messaging as an easy means of communicating instructions to staff may be prompted by an Employment Tribunal (ET) decision to consider other management tools. The owner of a family-run plant nursery suffered from anxiety and, during a period in which he largely worked from home, communicated with staff by means of social media group chats. The tone of such messages was generally very informal and jokes and swear words were sometimes…

HMRC are Clawing Back Furlough Payments Made in Error

It will come as no surprise to hear that HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is making stern efforts to claw back sums paid in error under the COVID-19 furlough scheme. As one case showed, however, that process has left some reputable and entirely honest employers caught between a rock and a hard place. The case concerned two workers who started employment with a furniture company in late February 2020. Because they were taken on so late in the month, they were not paid for the first time until 26…