Croft v Royal Mail Group Plc

Croft v Royal Mail Group Plc

A pre-operative transsexual employee undergoing gender reassignment is not automatically entitled to use facilities designated for the acquired gender. The employer's requirement to use unisex disabled toilets during the 'real life test' period did not constitute less favourable treatment or direct discrimination under section 2A of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. The employer took all reasonably practicable steps to prevent harassment and the request for medical information was not discriminatory. There was no constructive dismissal.

Parties
Appellant: Sarah Croft; Respondent: Royal Mail Group plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Gender Reassignment Discrimination, Workplace Facilities, Constructive Dismissal, Statutory Interpretation
Employment Law Anti Discrimination Law Gender Reassignment Discrimination Workplace Facilities Constructive Dismissal Statutory Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sarah Croft

Appellant

Royal Mail Group plc

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal to allow a pre-operative transsexual employee to use female toilets constitutes direct discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 section 2A
  2. 2 Whether the employer took all reasonably practicable steps to prevent acts of harassment by employees under section 41(3) of the Act
  3. 3 Whether the request for medical information regarding anatomical sex was discriminatory

Ratio Decidendi

A pre-operative transsexual employee undergoing gender reassignment is not automatically entitled to use facilities designated for the acquired gender. The employer's requirement to use unisex disabled toilets during the 'real life test' period did not constitute less favourable treatment or direct discrimination under section 2A of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. The employer took all reasonably practicable steps to prevent harassment and the request for medical information was not discriminatory. There was no constructive dismissal.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant to pay 50% of the respondent’s costs of the appeal on a standard basis, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.