Miss AB v Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames — 2023

Miss AB brought a single direct discrimination claim on grounds of gender reassignment. The tribunal recorded that there was no live claim for harassment or victimisation. It held that issue 3.1, the failure to implement the Equality Act in policy, reflected a wider HR failure rather than treatment because of the claimant's protected characteristic. It also held that issue 3.3, the absence of a transition risk assessment, was out of time and, in any event, there was no legal obligation to have a specific transition risk assessment.

On deadnaming, the tribunal accepted that the claimant's pension records, door pass, CRM highways complaints system, RBK/Sutton directory, vehicle pass and data security training arrangements were not updated promptly. It found that issues 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.15 and 3.19 amounted to less favourable treatment because of gender reassignment, and that the respondent had left the claimant to navigate the process without adequate support. The tribunal found that the respondent's failure to update policies and train staff was a wider failure, but not itself discriminatory against the claimant.

The tribunal also upheld issue 3.10, finding that after the claimant complained about Mr C she was removed from a number of works listed in Appendix 1 and that her protected characteristic was part of the reason for that treatment. It upheld issues 3.14, 3.16 and 3.17, finding that Mr C's demand for an apology, Mr E's similar instruction and Mr D's delay in escalating the complaint showed a dismissive attitude to her allegation of discrimination and that part of the response was because of gender reassignment. By contrast, it dismissed the allegations about Aquiva, the Wayfinding project, direct contact with councillors, the reprimand, the restructure review, the sickness absence point, and the later grievance-handling complaints, either because the facts were not made out, the acts were out of time, or the respondent showed they were reasonable management actions not motivated by the protected characteristic.

For remedy, the tribunal assessed injury to feelings in the middle Vento band and awarded £21,000, plus £4,423 interest at 8% from 10 December 2020 to 28 July 2023. It declined aggravated damages and an ACAS uplift, and recorded no separate financial loss award.