P v S and Cornwall County Council
European Court of Justice case regarding discrimination against transsexuals / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about P v S and Cornwall County Council?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
P v S and Cornwall County Council was a landmark case of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) which extended the scope of sex equality to discrimination against transsexuals.[1][2]
P v S | |
---|---|
Submitted 13 January 1994 Decided 30 April 1996 | |
Full case name | P v S and Cornwall County Council |
Case | C-13/94 ECR I-2143 |
CelexID | 61994CJ0013 |
Chamber | Full Court |
Court composition | |
Judge-Rapporteur Paul Joan George Kapteyn | |
President Gil Carlos Rodríguez Iglesias | |
Advocate General Giuseppe Tesauro | |
Instruments cited | |
Directive 76/207/EEC (Equal Treatment Directive) |
The case concerned a United Kingdom (UK) trans woman, referred to as P in court proceedings, who was dismissed from her post after informing her employers that she was undergoing gender reassignment. She took her employers to an Employment Tribunal. The Tribunal agreed that she had been dismissed because of her gender reassignment, but was unable to rule that she had been discriminated against because at that time the Sex Discrimination Act (SDA) offered little protection to transsexual people. If P had been a trans man, he would have been treated in the same way and so there were no grounds in the SDA to rule that P had been discriminated against.[3] However, the UK was part of the European Community and thus obliged to implement the Equal Treatment Directive. The Tribunal felt the scope of the Directive was wider than that of the SDA and accordingly asked the ECJ for a preliminary ruling. Effectively, the Tribunal asked the Court to rule whether the Directive precluded dismissal of a transsexual for a reason related to his or her gender reassignment.[4]
The Court, assisted by an influential opinion from Advocate General Tesauro, ruled that the Directive was an expression of a fundamental principle of equality and thus that the Directive did indeed preclude dismissal for a reason related to gender reassignment.[5] The Tribunal was able to rule in P's favour and P received compensation from her employers.[6]
It was the first piece of case law, anywhere in the world, which prevents discrimination in employment or vocational education because someone is transsexual.[7] The scope of the ruling is considered as applying to transsexuals "intending to undergo, undergoing or [who] have undergone gender reassignment".[8] However, the Court left open the question of employment where the natal sex or its continuity was a constitutive element in the employee's job.[9] In UK law this is reflected in the Equality Act 2010 where transsexuals can be barred from gender-specific services if that is "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim".[10]