Louise Hannon wins trans equality case

bitter_lemon · 21-04-2011 01:43AM

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 · 21-04-2011 03:13AM

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 · 21-04-2011 09:41AM

yes i get ya.

shoegirl · 21-04-2011 08:08PM

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 · 21-04-2011 08:26PM

@ 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 · 24-04-2011 10:23AM

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.