And speaking of just trying to get along each day brings me to the case of Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover Ltd [2020], in which the Employment Tribunal considered claims of constructive unfair dismissal, direct discrimination, harassment, and victimisation on the grounds of gender reassignment.

Ms Taylor commenced employment with Jaguar Land Rover Ltd in 1998 at the Jaguar Whitley site, where she worked as an engineer until her resignation in June 2018.

In 2017, Ms Taylor informed a Human Resources manager that she was transgender and described herself as being on a spectrum, transitioning from male to female gender identity. Approximately one month later, she informed her line manager that she was transgender, explaining that this was an umbrella term and that, in her case, the more accurate description would be “gender fluid”. She stated that she had no plans for surgical transition and noted that HR was already aware of her position. She also indicated that she had been invited to participate in the employer’s Transition at Work Policy, which was in development, and that she considered this to be a positive step.

Ms Taylor added that while she was generally open to discussion, certain questions were difficult for her at that stage and she would not be able to answer them. She further explained that, over time, she hoped to become more open and that this process formed part of establishing an Employee Resource Group aimed at improving wellbeing at work. Her line manager responded positively, stating: “I am so glad you feel you are able to discuss this with me and I want to assure you that you have my full support.”

The dispute arose following Ms Taylor’s decision to transition at work, after which she experienced ongoing difficulties in the workplace. These included issues relating to her use of toilet facilities, being referred to by her previous name, and persistent inappropriate and hostile comments from colleagues. She also raised concerns that her transition was not being adequately supported by management and that appropriate steps were not taken to prevent or address the treatment she was experiencing.

Ms Taylor raised internal grievances regarding her treatment, alleging that despite her complaints the employer failed to take adequate action to protect her dignity at work or to address the conduct of other employees. She further contended that this inaction amounted to detrimental treatment and ultimately led to her resignation. Following her resignation, Ms Taylor attempted to retract her notice, however, the employer refused to allow her to return to her former role.

Following the breakdown of the employment relationship, Ms Taylor brought claims in the Employment Tribunal of constructive unfair dismissal, direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation on the grounds of gender reassignment.

The employer argued that being gender fluid or non-binary did not fall within the scope of the protected characteristic of gender reassignment under the Equality Act 2010. However, the ET rejected this argument and held that Ms Taylor was protected under the Act. The ET concluded that “gender is a spectrum” and that it was “beyond any doubt” that Ms Taylor met the criteria set out in Section 7.

The ET upheld Ms Taylor’s claims, awarding her £180,000 in compensation.

This case is important because it clarifies that the protected characteristic of gender reassignment under the Equality Act 2010 includes non-binary and gender fluid employees, not just those undergoing full medical transition. It reinforces that employers have a duty to take reasonable and effective steps to prevent harassment and support employees during gender transition. The case highlights that employers’ inadequate handling of grievances and workplace support can lead to substantial compensation, emphasising the importance of proactive, consistent, and inclusive workplace practices.