Louise Hannon wins trans equality case

deirdre_dub

More than 3 years after she started her case, Louise Hannon today won her constructive dismissal case against her former employer.

So far, only RTE seem to have the story. Louise should be on the 9 o'clock news, and she may be in the Independent and the Sun tomorrow.

Congratulations, Louise - another important step along the road to equality.

Links234

Big congrats Louise!

also on newstalk: http://www.newstalk.ie/2011/news/transexual-worker-awarded-e35000/

L1011

I'm presuming this is Louisevb of this parish?

I'm amazed its the first case and I'm amazed it was only 35k compensation at that. Another milestone reached, even if it has no bearing on me, it certainly does on others here.

L.Jenkins

MYOB wrote: »

I'm presuming this is Louisevb of this parish?

You would be right.

hare05

That's our Louise?

Gonna Google that when I get home.

Freiheit

Today Fm said that she was forced to live for 2 years as a woman before sexual reassignment surgery, that isn't generally the case though is it?.

I've already personally congratulated Louisevb on well made case, she also waived her right to anonyminity, which will increase awareness and hopefully make it easier for others.

Scarinae

Fair play to her for waiving her anonymity, if it helps even one person realise that they're not alone then it was worth it. Congratulations!

hare05

It is the case. You need 2 years of 'real life test' before you're applicable for surgery. It's the last of the precautions in place to prevent people rushing into a permanent operation without being absolutely sure of themselves.

Very annoying from our perspective but I'd hate to see some poor soul rush into transitioning before they're 100% sure of themselves.

stephen_n

Hopefully this might get the civil servants to get their fingers out of their a**es and actually bring in proper legislation and maybe some educational support for companies. I think going by the last word that two year thing is the UK, Ireland as yet has no proper policy or legislation but that is open to correction!

hare05

stephen_n wrote: »

Hopefully this might get the civil servants to get their fingers out of their a**es and actually bring in proper legislation and maybe some educational support for companies. I think going by the last word that two year thing is the UK, Ireland as yet has no proper policy or legislation but that is open to correction!

No legislation, but as the op is carried out in england I wouldn't be surprised if their rules apply.

deirdre_dub

Freiheit wrote: »

Today Fm said that she was forced to live for 2 years as a woman before sexual reassignment surgery, that isn't generally the case though is it?.

<rant>
What is or is not in my pants is my business and the business of those I'm in an intimate relationship with only - it is not the business of the media, or of the man on the street, or of internet forums. It is just as inappropriate to discuss what is or isn't in my pants as it is to discuss it about any woman (or man, for that matter). If we are going to discuss Louise's genitalia, then I think it is only fair that we also discuss yours. Genitalia are not public property.
</rant>

Now that that's out of the way, let's have a generic discussion on the issues.

There are a number of factors that determine how long you live full-time before getting surgery -

1. Your own sense of discomfort

Some trans people are more comfortable with their birth genitalia than others. Indeed, some don't even need surgery at all.

2. The speed of the medical profession

'nuff said.

3. The gatekeeping requirements of the medical profession

To be perfectly honest, I don't know what these requirements are. I hear that it's one year, I hear that it's two. I hear it's based on when you start HRT, I hear it's based on when you do your deed poll change of name, I hear it's based on when you start living full-time 24/7. As hare pointed out, if you go the public route, you will end up in the UK, and their rules apply. Their rules seem to be based on when you started living full-time 24/7, though I'm still confused as to whether it is 1 year or 2. Of course, they don't put you on the operating table when you have fulfilled those requirements - they put you in the queue when you have fulfilled those requirements. The only thing that I hear that I believe is that the requirements are significantly easier if you go private. My advice would be to do your deed poll as quickly as possible (I delayed mine), and to keep gathering hard evidence of your path to going full-time.

I've already personally congratulated Louisevb on well made case, she also waived her right to anonyminity, which will increase awareness and hopefully make it easier for others.

Louise is a committed trans activist, and has well since lost any chance she may have had of anonymity. I'm thrilled for her. And I'm also thrilled for all of us that her case was successful.

Annasopra

I know Louise personally. I'm delighted for her. The stories I heard about her employer were shocking. This isn't just a personal victory for Louise though. It's a great victory for other transgendered people because the law now offers them more protections in that it is the first time the gender grounds of the employment equality legislation cover transgender. The sub heading in the star or sun tomorrow are shocking. Who needs to know what she is going to spend the money on?

L.Jenkins

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Who needs to know what she is going to spend the money on?

A victory for Louise is great for everyone , but leave it to a sensationalist rag to put a grossly inappropriate spin on it.

Freiheit

Are you not a bit hyper vigilant Deirdre? Looking for offence where there is none?.

In any event I never said what's between legs was any of my, business or that of the media,I don't think anyone ever did. The question on two years r.l.e. was an entirely different matter. Let your hair down and chill out.

deirdre_dub

Freiheit wrote: »

Are you not a bit hyper vigilant Deirdre? Looking for offence where there is none?.

No.

Are you?

In any event I never said what's between legs was any of my, business or that of the media,I don't think anyone ever did.

Indeed. I didn't say so either. I said quite the opposite.

The question on two years r.l.e. was an entirely different matter. Let your hair down and chill out.

You too.

I enclosed what I wrote with <rant> tags. That should have been a clue that this is a pet peeve of mine. In any case, Louise was on the radio this morning, and she answered a question about her surgery. That is her choice (and indeed the choice of Vanessa when she was on TV3 last year), but it's not something that I, personally, like to see. There seems to be an assumption in the media that the genitalia of a trans person are public property. And your quote from Today FM was, to me, an example of same.

Beruthiel

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Who needs to know what she is going to spend the money on?

IMO she should have gotten a lot more. Certainly if it went on for X amount of years then she should have gotten the equivalent salary ++ extra.

Either way, a great victory, congrats Louise, you're one brave woman!

Sir Ophiuchus

deirdre_dub wrote: »

There seems to be an assumption in the media that the genitalia of a trans person are public property. And your quote from Today FM was, to me, an example of same.

I get that it's a touchy and important topic for you Deirdre, but surely the fact that trans people are required to live as their transitioned gender for a number of years prior to surgery - should they elect to have it - is actually pretty important, both for trans people and for those working to understand trans issues in general. For example, I didn't know that until I read this thread.

Discussing whatever medical procedures Louise has personally had or not had - unless she elects to speak about them first - is obviously not OK, but a more general discussion of the issues seems both relevant and important.

Links234

Johnnymcg wrote: »

The sub heading in the star or sun tomorrow are shocking. Who needs to know what she is going to spend the money on?

what's the sub heading?

deirdre_dub

Sir Ophiuchus wrote: »

Discussing whatever medical procedures Louise has personally had or not had - unless she elects to speak about them first - is obviously not OK, but a more general discussion of the issues seems both relevant and important.

Agreed, which is why I engaged in that discussion once I got the rant out of the way.

Annasopra

Could we keep this on topic please?

KnifeWRENCH

Johnnymcg wrote: »

The sub heading in the star or sun tomorrow are shocking. Who needs to know what she is going to spend the money on?

Hardly surprising though, unfortunately. I remember one of those papers doing a piece on a university lecturer a couple of months ago (pretty sure there was a thread about it), which had no other purpose but to tell the world that she was transsexual. Tabloids love stories about transgender people because they try and paint them as freaks, and they know that there's an ignorant section of the public out there who'll lap it all up. :rolleyes:

Anyway, I'd like to echo previous posters sentiments and congratulate Louise. It was certainly very courageous of her to proceed with this case AND waive her anonymity as well.

deirdre_dub

Well, I saw the Irish Sun, and it's actually sympathetic!!! :eek: And, this story still hasn't appeared on After Hours!!!?? :eek:

Could it be that trans people have won some respect?!

L.Jenkins

deirdre_dub wrote: »

:eek: And, this story still hasn't appeared on After Hours!!!?? :eek:

I think the AH mods have learned some sense to stop such threads in there tracks and leave it to the LGBT forum as they usually become a breathing ground for overly opinionated trolls.

Alice1

Congratulations Louise. Well done - delighted for you and I admire your courage and determination.

Neyite

Congrats to Louise. I'm sure that it was hard work for her to get the verdict so fair play for seeing it through- it cant have been easy.

My brother in law worked with a transgender. Work called a meeting one friday of all staff to say that John*, a colleague would be coming into work on monday as Jenny*. Managment said that anyone who made remarks that could be construed as upsetting to either Jenny or anyone else about the transision would face immediate disciplinary action. They took it really seriously. However it was in the UK.

Proper order really. The person with the ability to do the job on the friday was still the same person who turned up on monday. Thats all that should matter in the workplace.

Aoifey!

Congrats to Louise, a great step forward

deirdre_dub

Louise is making yet more media appearances today - you go girl!

On a different note, the Iona Institute quoted one of the press releases almost verbatim, except that they have gratuitously mis-gendered Louise throughout - read it here if you have the stomach.

David Quinn is such a bitch!

L1011

They missed at least one at that.

Louisevb

Thank you everyone for your support..
I have been completely bowled over by the media coverage..Today I'm exhausted but delighted.... The response has been over all 99% positive and if it encourages others to take cases then it will have achieved some good. Employers need to recognise the transgender community and take their rights seriously... I hope they do that now

I was surprised by the attitude of the Sun...They spoke to me and i was reluctant to talk to them, but they promised to write a good piece. ..When I read the article, I was pleasently surprised. .I pointed out the Trinity front page story and said it wasn't on to do that sort of thing. I think our e mails of complaint perhaps hit home...
There is a full copy of the press release on my blog link below

Louisevb

I chose to say that I was pre operative to make the point that if I had been allowed to continue in the job as planned, I would have had the operation (SRS) completed by now...

Also the double whammy was the delay in the whole ajudication process of the EQ and EA and that agravated the situation that I found myself in by ultimately delaying my SRS. Justice delayed is justice denied

deirdre_dub

Louisevb wrote: »

I chose to say ...

Louise - please don't take what I wrote as a criticism of your decision to answer the question. It is obviously your decision as to what you say and don't say about your life - my issue is with the media who seem to think that it is appropriate to ask us questions that they would probably never ask another human being. I hope you get every last inch of benefit that it is possible to get from this experience - you deserve it!

bitter_lemon

Louisevb wrote: »

I chose to say that I was pre operative to make the point that if I had been allowed to continue in the job as planned, I would have had the operation (SRS) completed by now...

Also the double whammy was the delay in the whole ajudication process of the EQ and EA and that agravated the situation that I found myself in by ultimately delaying my SRS. Justice delayed is justice denied

please correct me if i am wrong but did your employers not say to you after you had disclosed your sexuality that they were willing to stand by you? did they not encourage you to stay on?
i deal only with facts - not emotions.
i'm sure you are delighted with the outcome and will become the person that you always wanted to be. and also that you can now afford the operation whereas before you couldn't. you could always have taken a leave of absence but you said in the media you could not afford it so that is what you are spending your windfall on.
your employers seemed quite reasonable compared to mine!

Buceph

bitter_lemon wrote: »

please correct me if i am wrong but did your employers not say to you after you had disclosed your sexuality that they were willing to stand by you? did they not encourage you to stay on?
i deal only with facts - not emotions.

I'm not trying to be dismissive, but do you understand what constructive dismissal means?

It's the idea that your work situation was impeded, or altered to such a point that you could no longer carry out what you were hired for. This can happen in a number of ways, one of which is where the company outright states they don't have confidence in you and puts you in a crappy situation. But another is where the company says all the right things in support of you, but acts in a completely different manner.

So if they were saying they supported Louise's transition they actually have to follow it up with support. Asking her to go back to male mode shows they obviously had no-intent of supporting her. And asking her to work at home meant that they didn't really want her doing the job.

Louise: What was the ruling on those separate points. Did the base the decision on the constructive dismissal part of making your work intolerable, or did they base it on the discrimination of having you switch between male and female roles? I figure one would be part of constructive dismissal purely, but another would be simple discrimination that amounted to constructive dismissal. Something the media hasn't really covered.

bitter_lemon

yes i get ya.

shoegirl

MYOB wrote: »

I'm presuming this is Louisevb of this parish?

I'm amazed its the first case and I'm amazed it was only 35k compensation at that. Another milestone reached, even if it has no bearing on me, it certainly does on others here.

I was thinking the same on both counts. 35k is small considering the ritual humiliation they put her through. My only concern was that they suggested she was discriminated against on grounds of disability - she wasn't, it was pure gender discrimination (just of a different sort).

Ridiculous though, she's probably a perfectly competent worker who could do her job well. They created all the problems, not Louise.

Louisevb

@ Buceph
There were two issues the case was based on
Having to change from female to male at the whim of the company after I had switched to working and living as Louise full time.
Secondly access to the workplace....

I told the company I wanted to leave in November 2006 and the date I had in mind was May 2007... They encouraged me to stay and said that they would work with me and help me to live full time... When I did transition on 7th March of 2007, they then wanted me to work on the phones as male ...see clients as male and continue to work in the office as female.. What made matters much worse was the treatment I received in the office.. continually calling me by my male name, in front of complete strangers... Now for a few days I could understand that... but for nearly six weeks? That was too much. That put me under enormous stress. Then I was asked to return to my male persona for three months which I refused to do.... I was then asked to work from home in mid April as "there was an atmosphere in the office" for one month ... That turned into over three months and I was then threatened with dismissal or produce more business. I was working from a cramped bedroom...looking at a blue wall...I had been pushed into isolation and the leads that I had been able to generate in the office which was busy dried up as did my ability to keep strong.

I was then told "to find another job"... which I did...but it fell through as it was a franchise and the company had lost the right to use the franchise. I was then out of work for four months till I got a job selling radio advertising which was good but nine months down the line... the recession was begining to bite and I was last in, first out.. Had First Diret the company been as supportive as my new employer I would still have been there and there would have been to problem... If I can cold call any street in Dublin as Louise selling radio advertising then surely I could have done the same thing for First Direct Logistics, where I was generating over 60% of the new business. They did my self esteem no good whatsoever, and it took a while to find my strength again and that is one of the reasons, but not the only one which made me take the case to the Equality Authority

Azure_sky

Good news and congratulations Louise. Affirmative action is the prime goal. Not getting fired because you're trans is great but not being hired because your trans is more difficult to address due to covert discrimination.

Endymion

I had wondered if it was yourself. Well done. I'm pretty certain, though not positive, I've seen you in panti on the rare occasion.

BanzaiBk

Saw this yesterday and wondered if it was yourself. Congratulations and thanks Louise.

Louisevb

http://bit.ly/h1hqzF

The article that I wrote for the Journal.ie which appeared today.

deirdre_dub

The report on Louise's case is now on the equality tribunal web site.