This is a preview. To continue reading please log in or Register to read this article

Sex discrimination: Direct sex discrimination against transsexual

This report relates to 1 case(s)

  • expand

    Chessington World of Adventures Ltd v Reed [1997] IRLR 556 EAT (2 other reports)

    • EAT has limited powers to restrict reporting

      1 March 1998

      In Chessington World of Adventures v Reed ex parte News Group Newspapers the EAT holds that it does not have statutory power to make a restricted reporting order in an appeal against a decision on a question of liability in a case involving an allegation of sexual misconduct.

    • Transsexuals covered by SDA

      1 September 1997

      In Chessington World of Adventures Ltd v Reed (27 June 1997), the EAT holds that the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 can be construed so as to cover unfavourable treatment on grounds of an intention to undergo gender reassignment.

A male-to-female transsexual who was subjected to a concerted and prolonged campaign of harassment and ostracism by colleagues following her announcement that she intended to undergo gender reassignment was directly discriminated against on the grounds of her sex contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act, holds the EAT in Chessington World of Adventures Ltd v Reed [1997] IRLR 556. In those circumstances, the reason for the unfavourable treatment is to be regarded in itself as sex-based, and there is no requirement for a male/female comparison to be made.