Jump to content

Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover Ltd

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover Ltd
CourtEmployment tribunal
Full case name Ms R Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover Ltd
Decided14 September 2020 (2020-09-14)

Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover Ltd was a UK employment tribunal court case in 2020 that ruled that non-binary gender and genderfluid identities fall under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment in the Equality Act 2010.[1][2]

Background

[edit]

Section 7 of the Equality Act 2010 lists the protected characteristic of gender reassignment:

1) 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 the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.
2) A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.[3]

Case

[edit]

In 2017, Rose Taylor, an engineer at Jaguar Land Rover, publicly came out as genderfluid. Following her coming-out, she began facing harassment at her workplace, including discriminatory comments and issues accessing toilet facilities and managerial support. In August 2017, she raised a complaint with her workplace HR after two of her colleagues referred to her as "it," but was told by HR "well what else would you want them to call you?"[4]

In 2018, she resigned from Jaguar and announced her intention to sue the company in a discrimination action. The company, however, argued that her identity as genderfluid did not fall under the Equality Act protected characteristic of gender reassignment.[5] As part of the ruling, the tribunal found that:

It was very clear that Parliament intended gender reassignment to be a spectrum moving away from birth sex, and that a person could be at any point on that spectrum... it was beyond any doubt that somebody in the situation of the Claimant was (and is) protected by the legislation because they are on that spectrum and they are on a journey which will not be the same in any two cases.[6]

On 14 September 2020, the tribunal ruled in Taylor's favour, finding that genderfluid identities fell under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment and that she had been discriminated against on the basis of being genderfluid.[7]

The tribunal also ruled that the company had failed to follow the Acas Code of Practice in regards to measures to help Taylor in the workplace in her transition and subsequently increased the damages compensation due by 20%.[8] On 2 October 2020, the judge awarded Taylor £180,000 in damages.[9] Jaguar additionally issued a formal apology to Taylor over the discrimination.[10]

Reactions

[edit]

LBGT+ rights charity Stonewall reacted positively to the news, stating that "this ruling is a milestone moment in recognising the rights of non-binary and gender fluid people to be protected from discrimination under the Equality Act. Up until now, it’s not been clear whether non-binary people would be protected by anti-discrimination legislation."[11]

Lawyers Adam Cooke of Stephenson Harwood and Oscar Davies of Lamb Chambers noted that Jaguar had pre-existing Equal Opportunities and Dignity at Work policies, and that the case was consequently "a prime example of how having a policy in place cannot, in and of itself, absolve an employer of liability when related grievances arise."[12] Writing for The Law Society Gazette, Lizzie Hardy stated that "as is often the case, the law has to play catch-up to society’s movement away from seeing gender as a purely binary construct."[13]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "Landmark case could be key to developing gender-fluid inclusion in the workplace; Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover". Thrive Law. 30 November 2020. Retrieved 10 June 2021.
  2. ^ "Diversity and inclusion: Key steps to support non-binary employees after landmark ruling". Legalease Law Journals. November 2015. Retrieved 10 June 2021.
  3. ^ "Equality Act 2010". The National Archives. Retrieved 10 June 2021.
  4. ^ Morton, Melanie (3 December 2020). "Gender Reassignment Discrimination l Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover Ltd". Nelsons. Retrieved 10 June 2021.
  5. ^ "Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover". pjhlaw. PJH Law. 16 October 2020. Retrieved 10 June 2021.
  6. ^ "Ms R Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover Ltd: 1304471/2018". GOV.UK. HM Courts & Tribunals Service. 21 September 2020. Retrieved 10 June 2021.
  7. ^ "Inclusion of non-binary employees: What employers need to know following Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover". Addleshaw Goddard. 19 May 2021. Retrieved 10 June 2021.
  8. ^ "Gender-fluid worker wins Jaguar Land Rover tribunal". BBC News. 16 September 2020. Retrieved 10 June 2021.
  9. ^ Parsons, Vic (5 October 2020). "Jaguar Land Rover ordered to pay £180,000 to genderfluid engineer after relentless campaign of harassment". PinkNews. Retrieved 10 June 2021.
  10. ^ Mullen, Enda; Rodger, James (29 September 2020). "JLR apologises to former employee over harassment and discrimination". BirminghamLive. Retrieved 10 June 2021.
  11. ^ Wareham, Jamie (16 September 2020). "Non-Binary People Protected By U.K. Equality Act, Says Landmark Ruling Against Jaguar Land Rover". Forbes. Retrieved 10 June 2021.
  12. ^ Cooke, Adam; Davies, Oscar (2 December 2020). "A substantive review of the landmark decision in Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover Limited and the protection it provides for those who identify as non-binary and gender fluid under the Equality Act 2010". Lamb Chambers. Retrieved 10 June 2021.
  13. ^ Hardy, Lizzie (12 October 2020). "Non-binary/gender fluid claimants". The Law Society Gazette. Retrieved 10 June 2021.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Taylor_v_Jaguar_Land_Rover_Ltd&oldid=1247478330"