For advice and assistance on issues relating to the fair treatment of non-binary employees, please contact our employment and HR experts on 01332 226 155.
14 July 2022 marks International Non-Binary People’s Day.
Non-binary is defined by the Government Equality Office (GEO) as applying to those who “…regard themselves as neither male nor female, or both male and female, or take another approach to gender entirely“.
14 July 2022
Case Study
Gender identity can be a complicated and sensitive topic for employers and employees alike. The landmark ruling of Taylor -v- Jaguar Land Rover (ET1304471/2018), however, provides a recent example of how employers can face drastic consequences where non-binary individuals are not protected from harassment.
In this case, the claimant was an engineer at Jaguar Land Rover and had almost 20 years’ service. In 2017, the claimant began to identify as non-binary and whilst they had previously presented as male, started to dress in women’s clothing. They brought claims against Jaguar Land Rover as they said they were subjected to frequent insults and abusive jokes by colleagues. There were also issues with their use of toilet facilities.
As the respondent, Jaguar Land Rover defended the claims on the basis that the claimant did not fall within the definition of gender reassignment under the Equality Act 2010, which was the basis for the claimant’s claims.
Section 7(1) Equality Act 2010 states that, “A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.”
In reaching its decision, the tribunal found that whilst this definition did not unambiguously cover non-binary individuals, it had been Parliament’s intention to protect those on the ‘spectrum’ of gender reassignment, which thus included the claimant. Although this decision is not binding on other employment tribunals, employers would be well advised to consider this decision, given the adverse outcome for the respondent.
Case Study
Jaguar Land Rover subsequently agreed to pay the claimant substantial damages of £180,000. The considerable sum was agreed as Employment Judge Hughes, having heard submissions on the point, found that aggravated damages were appropriate because of “the egregious way the claimant was treated, and the insensitive stance taken by the respondent in defending the proceedings”. The tribunal also noted that they had previously come across a failure of this scale on behalf of the employer before.
In order to avoid getting things wrong and, importantly, to ensure that non-binary employees feel supported in the workplace, employers should look to take steps to help non-binary individuals feel included whilst at work. Such steps might include:
Related Services
The Court of Appeal has provided important guidance on the enforceability of training repayment clauses in employment contracts.
Read More
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has clarified when employers may be deemed to have knowledge of an employee's disability.
Read More
Download our probationary period resource pack to help prepare for the Employment Rights Act changes from January 2027.
Read More
An employer's failure to involve an employee in an investigation led to findings of disability discrimination and compensation.
Read More
The EAT highlights the limits of protected conversations and the risks employers face when discussions are handled incorrectly.
Read More
Employer ordered to pay over £264,000 after a reference referring to an ongoing dispute was found to amount to victimisation.
Read More
Download expert guidance on UK trade union reforms and prepare your organisation for Employment Rights Act changes.
Read More
EAT confirms endometriosis can be a disability and examines reasonable adjustments, dismissal risks and performance management issues for employers.
Read More
EAT confirms withdrawing a conditional job offer can breach contract with employers understanding when an offer is binding and notice applies.
Read More
EAT confirms leaving transferred staff on inferior terms can amount to indirect discrimination, even under TUPE.
Read More
EAT confirms dismissal must be based on the employer’s actual reason, not a substitute. Incorrect reasoning can make dismissal unfair.
Read More
EAT finds dismissal unfair in Milrine v DHL (2026). Key lessons for employers on appeal processes and reducing tribunal risk.
Read More