Jumping the hurdles of Gender - Transsexuals finally make legal
headway
By Stephen Whittle Ph.D, M.A, LL.B, B.A, Lecturer, The School of
Law, The Manchester Metropolitan University
Co-ordinator UK FTM Network, Vice President of Press For Change
Email: s.t.whittle@mmu.ac.uk
Finally transsexuals in the United Kingdom have achieved a break
through in their on-going battle with the United Kingdom's archaic
legal approach to their gender status. In the employment
discrimination case of P v S and Cornwall County Council, the
Advocate General's recommendation to the European Court of Justice
(1) is that The European Council Directive on the principle of equal
treatment for men and women should be held to cover transsexuals.
The decision, if confirmed by the Court (and it is rare for such
recommendations to not be ratified) means that throughout Europe it
will be unlawful to discriminate against a transsexual, whether
female to male or male to female, on the grounds that they are going
to have or have had gender reassignment. The direction given by the
Advocate General is that ..
Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC
must be interpreted as precluding the dismissal of a transsexual on
account of a change of sex
The case of P v S and Cornwall County Council involved a male to
female transsexual, P, who worked as a senior manager in a Cornwall
Education Establishment. On informing her employers that she was
undergoing gender reassignment, and wished to come to work as a
woman, she was given notice of the termination of her contract. She
was not allowed to return to work during the period of her
transition, that was when she was living full time as a woman but had
not undergone surgical genital reassignment, and her period of
employment terminated without her returning to work. P brought an
action before an Industrial Tribunal claiming that she had suffered
discrimination on the grounds of sex. Both S and Cornwall County
Council claimed that, on the contrary, she had been dismissed by
reason of redundancy.
The Industrial Tribunal found that whilst there was a case for
redundancy, the true reason for dismissal was the objection to P's
intention to undergo gender reassignment.
At this stage the Industrial Tribunal found that English law
provides no protection to transsexuals, it long being the case that
under the Sex Discrimination Act all that an employer needed to show
was that they would have treated a transsexual of either (natally
recorded) sex in the same manner. However the Attorney General has
approached the question differently. He asked not whether P would
have been dismissed if she had in fact been a female to male
transsexual, but rather would she have been dismissed if she had
remained a man. Holding that she would not have been, therefore he
could see no reason for not upholding a claim that there had been
discrimination by reason of sex, or as he put it: `on grounds of sex,
if that is preferred'.
He held that for the purposes of this case, and the European
Directive, sex is important as a social convention. Discrimination is
frequently to do with the social roles of women rather than their
physical characteristics, similarly discrimination suffered by
transsexuals is linked to moral judgements which have nothing to do
with their abilities in the sphere of employment. Asthe Court has a
duty to ensure that the general principles of Community Law are
upheld, and as these include a respect for certain fundamental
rights, one of which is the elimination of discrimination based on
sex as expressed in the directive, then the directive must be held to
cover changes from one sex to another as much as it covers whether a
person is discriminated against because they are a man or woman.
This decision is a monumental decision for transsexuals
throughout Europe. It is the first piece of case law to come into
existence, anywhere in the world, which prevents discrimination
because someone is a transsexual. Throughout the rest of the world,
where transsexuals may be able to change their birth certificates and
marry a member of their opposite gender grouping, employment
protection has long been elusive. In the USA, as happened with Sex
Discrimination law in Britain, no court has found Title VII of the
1965 Civil Rights Act applicable to discrimination cases brought by
transsexuals. The statute provides ..
It shall be unlawful employment practice for an employer
i. to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or
otherwise to discriminate against any individual ... because of such
individual's .. sex.
In a very few short years, from the first reported case of Voyles
v R.K.Davies Medical 1975 in which an employer was granted permission
to dismiss a male to female transsexual who asked to be called by her
new name, to the decision in Kirkpatrick v Seligman & Latz Inc.
(1979) in which a beauty salon employee was dismissed, the courts
made discrimination claims by transsexuals impossible to pursue.
According to the 1993 Employment Law Project of The International
Conference on Transgender Law and Employment Policy the courts have
..
"gone out of their way to find that existing federal
non-discrimination laws do not apply to transgendered individuals."
The courts have repeatedly held that the word "sex" in Title VII
is to be given its plain meaning and is not to encompass
transsexuals, the major thrust of the legislation being to provide
equal opportunities for women.
The recommendation by the Attorney General in P v S and Cornwall
County Council, is asking the European Court, as he admits, to make a
courageous decision. But to make that decision is to acknowledge what
he considers a universal fundamental value: the irrelevance of a
person's sex with regard to the rules regulating relations in
society.
Transsexuals in the United Kingdom have a lot to be grateful for
as a result of the decisions in this case. Now they can ask for there
to be reporting restrictions on their Industrial Tribunal cases,
after the decision at the lower level that not to afford privacy to
transsexuals was to severely restrict their access to justice. Now
they can actually assert sex discrimination and have hopes of being
successful in their claims. Finally, they can hope the decision will
lead employers' to rethink their Equal Opportunities policies, and
other relevant practices, just as happened with the introduction of
the Sex Discrimination legislation. Case Law and legislation cannot
possible stop all discrimination on otherwise essentially arbitrary
grounds, but they do provide an educational thrust which forces those
in positions of power to reconsider their practices, especially when
not to do so might cost them far more than a little adaptation over
the use of the staff toilets.
This recommendation comes as Alex Carlile Q.C, M.P, has just
announced his intention to promote a Private Member's Bill on behalf
of Press For Change, to allow legal gender status change for
transsexuals in the United Kingdom, and the European Commission of
Human Rights have once again recommended a case concerning a
transsexual to be forwarded to the Court. The tide of public opinion
has probably long since turned as can be seen through the welter of
articles, television programmes etc. which now portray transsexuals
in a very positive light. Perhaps now we are seeing the turning of
the legal stream which for an interminable period has refused to
acknowledge what medicine has long since known; that the only
effective treatment for the transsexual is reassignment and such
treatment helps an individual form a productive life.
1. Given on the 14th December 1995 2. European Council Directive
76/207/EEC, 9th February 1976 3. para 25, Attorney General's decision
14th December 1995 4. White v British Sugar Corporation [1977] IRLR
121 5. para 18, Attorney General's decision 14th December 1995 6.
[1975] 403 F.Supp. 456 (N.D.Cal), comment in Wein, S.A., Remmers,
C.L.: "Employment Protection and Gender Dysphoria: Legal Definitions
Of Unequal Treatment On The Basis Of Sex And Disability", Hastings
Law Journal, (1979), Vol 30: 1075-1129 7. [1979] (M.D.Fl 1979) 636
F.2d 1047 8. ICTLEP: "Proceedings from The Second International
Conference On Transgender Law And Employment Policy" (1993), Texas,
ITCLEP: A6-2 9. X., Y. and Z v The United Kingdom, Applic. No.
21830/93 [1994] E.C.H.R
Back to the Gender Room