Thread by @MForstater

The much-trailed full judgment in the case of Taylor v Jaguar Landrover is out

It seems to be a straightforward case of gender reassignment discrimination/harassment, where, as we already know protection in the Eq A begins early in the transition process
oldsquare.co.uk/wp-content/upl…

The word 'non-binary' appears 6 times, the word 'transition' or 'transitioning' appears 56 times.

Taylor is referred to as "she" throughout and now identifies as a transwoman.

It is not clear that this is a "landmark case" recognising non-binary as a thing in law at all.

The word TERF actually appears more times in the judgment than the word non-binary.

Here management Google the word TERF and declare it "not appropriate in any workplace"

The JLR local management appear out of their depth and struggling to work out the right thing to do. They give Taylor permission to use the male, female or disabled loos but don't explain this to other staff, leaving all open to humiliation and conflict.

JLR volunteered to make an extraordinary payout and also to comission a report by a "recognised diversity organisation, such as Stonewall"

JLR should be cautious in appointing the org to do this - make sure they reflect all 9 protected characteristics!

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5f85b154…

Reading the case also puts the reported comments about Rosa Parks & MLK into some context.

Taylor resigned & then sought to unresign because a friend, from National Grid's LGBT network had joined the co.

There was a Q about "whether one person could make a difference"