In case C-117/01: K B v National Health Service Pensions Agency and Secretary of State for Health, the ECJ ruled on 7 January 2004 that national legislation which denies transsexuals the right to marry is contrary to Community law if the effect of this is to deprive them of any entitlement to a survivor's pension.
After nearly three years, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has finally provided an answer to a question concerning the pension rights of transsexuals.
In Croft v Royal Mail Group plc (18 July 2003), the Court of Appeal rules that a pre-operative male-to-female transsexual was not discriminated against on grounds of sex when she was temporarily denied use of female communal toilet facilities, but holds that a permanent refusal could be an act of discrimination even if the person has not undergone gender reassignment surgery.
In A v Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police & anr, the Court of Appeal holds that, after the ECHR decision in Goodwin v UK, post-operative transsexuals are legally members of their chosen gender in the employment context, except where there exist significant factors of public interest which outweigh the interests of the individual applicant in obtaining legal recognition of his or her gender re-assignment.
In Croft v Consignia plc (30 September 2002), the EAT holds that a pre-operative male-to-female transsexual was not discriminated against on grounds of sex when she was denied use of female communal toilet and changing facilities.
A pre-operative male-to-female transsexual was not discriminated against when required to use the gender-neutral disabled toilet at her workplace, rather than the women's toilets, the EAT holds in Croft v Consignia plc.
This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering: gender reassignment and statutory minimum remuneration.
In Goodwin v United Kingdom (11 July 2002), the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) rules that the lack of recognition in the UK of a transsexual's new gender identity for legal purposes is a breach both of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (respect for private life) and article 12 (right to marry).
An employment tribunal was wrong to find that there existed a conflict between the gender reassignment provisions of the SDA and the Equal Treatment Directive because of the theoretical possibility of an absolute bar on the employment of transsexuals as police constables on the ground that they would be liable to be called upon to perform intimate physical searches, the EAT holds in The Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police v A and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
In Ashton v Chief Constable of West Mercia Constabulary  ICR 67 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld an employment tribunal's decision that a male to female transsexual dismissed due to poor performance had not been discriminated against on grounds of sex, although the poor performance was linked to the side effects of medical treatment for gender reassignment. It also upheld a finding that the employee was not disabled within the meaning in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to gender reassignment discrimination.