This page presents a Summary followed by some Details from the Council’s most inappropriate statements to the Tribunal in September 2006. The Aims are to plainly point out: -a) the nasty tactics Brighton & Hove City Council DO use to undermine someone who tries to complain about them; and
b) what the Council REALLY think about transgender people, despite cultivating a public image that appears on the surface to be supportive.In May 2008 the Chief Executive Alan McCarthy (see here) their submissions are transphobic when “set in context of the full submissions”. This view was not shared by the Tribunal who judged them illegal in their full context.
McCarthy misled suggesting Council submissions are protected under “legal privilege” when legal privilege only protects the privacy of client lawyer communications or “legal advice”. In contrast submissions are public arguments made to the Tribunal. For more about legal privilge see here and here. A Restricted Reporting Order was granted to protect the victim X from further press attacks by removing the vcitims name from all Tribunal documents. It was not granted to protect this Council from public scrutiny of its submissions.
SUMMARY: -
Victimisation of ‘X’:-
1. Has a “… very obsessive view and tunnel vision, which does not match any reality”.
2. Is “… the author of her own misfortune”.
3. The Council would take “... same line ... whatever the nature of the claim”.
4. The victim was “… involved in a very public divorce or… a brawl”.
5. The Council argued the victims claims are “... scandalous, misconceived and vexatious”.
Transphobic Discrimination of ‘X’ the victim: -
1. The Council argue “…gender change must cause … [the victim's] inability to work.”
2. The Council insist the victim must have “traceability”, “misrepresentation” and “misconduct” checks beyond normal Criminal Records Bureau checks.
3. The Council maintain “he”, “him” and “male” is “sensible use of language” to describe the victim when “she” is also used by the Council.
DETAILS:-
Extracts & Analysis of the Council’s Written Submissions to the Employment Tribunals.
The Submissions were written by a Council Employment Solicitor, on 29 November 2006 after a full Hearing had taken place in front of the Tribunal panel. They are the Council’s opportunity to put their legal arguments as to why they should not be found guilty of discrimination and victimisation.
Victimisation in every day use is bullying and harassment. In law it is when a person is treated worse than another person, because a) they brought proceedings against someone in the past, and b) referred to past discrimination against the same person and a backlash after it, in a secret reference to a potential employer. The victimisation happened because the Council would not let the person make a complaint about one of their senior managers. They call this using the “statutory grievance procedure”,
Discrimination means when a person is treated worse than another person. In this example it is because the person is transgender. It can also happen because of age, race, disability and other reasons. The discrimination happened because the Council treated the person differently and worse than others because of being transgender. They call this "undergoing gender reassignment”.
ONE: Continuing Victimisation.
The Council continue to use extreme measures to victimise and bully the individual as a key tactic in their legal arguments by:
a) admitting they would never allow X to make a complaint, whatever the issue was
d) condemning X for not accepting their wrong actions
1) The Council stated that whatever the situation, they have a blanket policy against X :
2) The Council personally attacked X and makes out a hysterical fantasist. In reality, all claims were upheld by the Tribunal and the statement was written with a solicitor’s input :
3) This Council personally attacked X as exaggerating. They argued that what the Council did was minor compared to what they believe X did to herself, having been a victim of discrimination already :
4) The Council argued that since X rejected their offer of an illegal reference, stating she is transgender, X was actually to blame :
5) The Council heartlessly and unsympathetically described past discrimination and public attacks by another Council towards X as a “brawl”, on 10 September 2004 in their first response.
“Para 7. He was doing no more than he would for a teacher who had been involved in a very public divorce or who had been involved in a brawl, which had been publicised.”
6) At the outset the Council challenged the validity of X making complaints against them as being disreputable and untrustworthy.
TWO: Continuing Transphobic Discrimination.
This section shows how the Council’s true beliefs about trangender people are bigoted, prejudiced, ignorant and an incitement to hatred. The Council argued:
a) being transgender makes you ill
b) being transgender needs special security measures
e) forcing people at work to disclose being transgender is necessary
f) transgender issues were irrelevant in this instance
1) The Council wrongly argued that being transgender in itself makes you ill and as a result you cannot work, as opposed to the damage of their discrimination and victimisation :
2) The Council mistakenly argued that as long as you misrefer to a female, who used to be male, as male, and then use ‘he’ and ‘him’ it is ok, as it is just contextual. This contradicts every recommendation, as well as the law, which says using both gender pronouns for one person is illegal.
3) The Council do admit that disclosing X is transgender was the condition to giving a reference. They also knew they could not issue one with that fact and refused to issue one without that fact:
4) The Council implied that transgender people deceive by not disclosing their status at work and that extra measures to check for ‘misconduct’ are needed: -
Extracts & Analysis of the Council’s Written Submissions to the Employment Tribunals.
The Submissions were written by a Council Employment Solicitor, on 29 November 2006 after a full Hearing had taken place in front of the Tribunal panel. They are the Council’s opportunity to put their legal arguments as to why they should not be found guilty of discrimination and victimisation.
Victimisation in every day use is bullying and harassment. In law it is when a person is treated worse than another person, because a) they brought proceedings against someone in the past, and b) referred to past discrimination against the same person and a backlash after it, in a secret reference to a potential employer. The victimisation happened because the Council would not let the person make a complaint about one of their senior managers. They call this using the “statutory grievance procedure”,
Discrimination means when a person is treated worse than another person. In this example it is because the person is transgender. It can also happen because of age, race, disability and other reasons. The discrimination happened because the Council treated the person differently and worse than others because of being transgender. They call this "undergoing gender reassignment”.
ONE: Continuing Victimisation.
The Council continue to use extreme measures to victimise and bully the individual as a key tactic in their legal arguments by:
a) admitting they would never allow X to make a complaint, whatever the issue was
b) implying X is obsessive, extreme, exaggerating and making it up,
c) blaming X for having been a victim in the past,d) condemning X for not accepting their wrong actions
1) The Council stated that whatever the situation, they have a blanket policy against X :
"11.1 As to failure to allow the Claimant use of the grievance procedure, the view was taken that it was not appropriate, that the grievance was not genuinely related to a former employment relationship. Even if this view was held to be wrong that is not in itself evidence of discrimination. It is reasonable to assume the same line would have been taken by the Respondents whatever the nature of the claim.”
2) The Council personally attacked X and makes out a hysterical fantasist. In reality, all claims were upheld by the Tribunal and the statement was written with a solicitor’s input :
“5.2 ... The intemperate language of inter alia the Claimant’s statement with its extreme claims as to motives and consequences and knowledge is indicative of a very obsessive view and tunnel vision, which does not match any reality.”
3) This Council personally attacked X as exaggerating. They argued that what the Council did was minor compared to what they believe X did to herself, having been a victim of discrimination already :
“12.5 ... would say that the Claimant’s expression of outrage and hurt are grossly excessive in relation to what was done or not done and her own previous conduct.”
4) The Council argued that since X rejected their offer of an illegal reference, stating she is transgender, X was actually to blame :
“6.4 ... the Respondents offered to discuss with the Claimant a form of words but this was not taken up so the Claimant is the author of her own misfortune. This offer has never been withdrawn.”
5) The Council heartlessly and unsympathetically described past discrimination and public attacks by another Council towards X as a “brawl”, on 10 September 2004 in their first response.
“Para 7. He was doing no more than he would for a teacher who had been involved in a very public divorce or who had been involved in a brawl, which had been publicised.”
6) At the outset the Council challenged the validity of X making complaints against them as being disreputable and untrustworthy.
“The Respondent would ask that the application be struck out on the basis that it is scandalous and/or misconceived and/or vexatious.”
TWO: Continuing Transphobic Discrimination.
This section shows how the Council’s true beliefs about trangender people are bigoted, prejudiced, ignorant and an incitement to hatred. The Council argued:
a) being transgender makes you ill
b) being transgender needs special security measures
c) it is ok to call the same person her, him and he
d) it is ok refer to someone in the wrong sexe) forcing people at work to disclose being transgender is necessary
f) transgender issues were irrelevant in this instance
1) The Council wrongly argued that being transgender in itself makes you ill and as a result you cannot work, as opposed to the damage of their discrimination and victimisation :
"6.3 Instead I would say that it is the Claimant’s underlying medical history and gender change must cause and ... contributed greatly if not entirely to her inability to work.”
2) The Council mistakenly argued that as long as you misrefer to a female, who used to be male, as male, and then use ‘he’ and ‘him’ it is ok, as it is just contextual. This contradicts every recommendation, as well as the law, which says using both gender pronouns for one person is illegal.
"2.7 There is no discrimination in referring to the Claimant, male in the cover note, as “he”, “him”. It is a sensible use of language... ”
3) The Council do admit that disclosing X is transgender was the condition to giving a reference. They also knew they could not issue one with that fact and refused to issue one without that fact:
"3.1 On 1 February 2005 the Claimant made a second request for a reference [Mr Morgan the Council Manager] was unwilling to provide one, unless he also disclosed the [victims'] change of identity. The [Council and Mr Morgan] could hardly have given a reference referring to the change of gender knowing the Claimant’s objection."
4) The Council implied that transgender people deceive by not disclosing their status at work and that extra measures to check for ‘misconduct’ are needed: -
"2.6 ... to ensure traceability so that meaningful checks could be made... to ensure that there was no misrepresentation [or] other types of misconduct. It is very important that employers also independently obtain references from previous employers and verify that the person has the qualification claimed."
