"PUB PAYS DAMAGES TO BANNED SEX SWAP DRINKER"
I was pointed at the following article earlier:
http://www.popall.co.uk/news/2000/pubpaysdamagestobannedsexswapdrinker.asp
News: PUB PAYS DAMAGES TO BANNED SEX SWAP DRINKER
A publican's right to serve who he chooses was ended by a landmark case yesterday.
Licensee David Woodhead had banned transsexual Lisa Jones because she made his regulars feel uncomfortable as she drank in the bar.
Women customers were unhappy that the 6ft father of two, who has been living as a female for 18 months - but has not had a sex-change operation - was using the ladies' toilet.
However, 43 year-old Miss Jones launched a sex discrimination claim, backed by the Equal Opportunities Commission.
And yesterday, in an out of court settlement, Mr Woodhead agreed to pay her £1,000 compensation, gave her a written apology - and invited her back to his pub, the Jacob's Well in the village of Honley, near Huddersfield.
As well as effectively destroying a licensee's prerogative of who to serve, the decision has widespread implications for other businesses providing goods and services. All must now develop equal opportunities policies that cover transsexuals or face possible discrimination claims, according to the commission.
Yesterday, Miss Jones said she had taken legal action on principle and the decision was 'brilliant' - but she would not be returning to the pub.
'The landlord said that some of the regulars had stopped coming in because I was there and his takings were down and he would be grateful if I stopped going in' the defence worker added.
'I know I'm tall and my voice is not as feminine as it should be, but I hadn't done anything to upset the regulars. I've never been so insulted. I was upset, to say the least. I know it's difficult for people because people like me are still not accepted and are seen as freaks of Nature'.
Yesterday Mr Woodhead refused to comment. But, speaking soon after banning her, he defended the decision.
He said: 'My job is to make sure to the best of my ability that the majority of my customers enjoy the ambience and enjoy what they have come to me for many years for.'
His wife Beth added: David said it was the hardest thing he'd ever had to do. If she had been in a town centre pub there would have been less impact, but it's very difficult in a little village pub.'
There are no more than 5,000 transsexuals in the country, but all businesses will now have to go out of their way to ensure they do not offend them. The effect will be more bureaucratic worry for firms already struggling with red tape which requires them to limit working hours, give leave to parents, and administer the new state benefit, Working Families Tax Credit.
New laws introduced last year following a European Court ruling banned discrimination in jobs and training against those who have undergone 'gender reassignment.' But they did not explicitly cover the provision of goods and services.
However, the Jones case suggests that the risk of penal compensation payments now faces any business such as shops, pubs and restaurants that chooses not to serve someone because they are transsexual.
Although the case was settled out of course, it points to the way the courts will go when a full test hearing does go through. Hilary Slater, lawyer for the Equal Opportunities Commission, said yesterday: 'There is a strong argument that discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment by service providers is unlawful. We recommend that all businesses have equal opportunities policies to ensure that they do not discriminate against customers on grounds including gender reassignment.'
David Clifton of law firm Joelson Wilson, specialists in licensing law, said: 'As a pub landlord, you have an absolute right to decide who you let in or who you do not, provided you do not discriminate on grounds of race or sex. Discrimination against transsexuals is now, we think, unlawful on grounds of sexual discrimination.'
Miss Jones had never gone to the Jacob's Well as a man, but started visiting to meet a friend. She said: 'I got talking to the landlady and was invited into the social group. There was no animosity shown or hinted at. It was a pleasant and nice pub.'
Miss Jones said her children and parents understand her transsexuality. 'They are brilliant, they've been totally supportive.' Of the settlement, she said: 'The money is nice but the satisfaction is that although we didn't go to court and change the law, at least other people will now have second thoughts before discriminating. I am just said that it was me because I have lost a lot of people who I thought were friends.'
Mr Woodhead had described the scene of her first visit to the pub as astounding.
'Given that we are a local pub with a lot of regulars who are middle-aged and where there is a high incidence of many who stand at the bar and drink, when Lisa Jones came in on that first occasion dressed as a woman it was a shock.' he said.
Customers had resisted the temptation to snigger, but after subsequent visits, began to complain that they felt uncomfortable about being forced to share conversations with her.
He said: 'She said the pub had put its takings before her personal liberty but what about the personal liberties of all these other people?'
I'm pleased that the trans woman concerned won damages. However, the tone of the article is mightily offensive.
That this comes from a group of solicitors is deeply troubling, they ought to know better than to be apparently siding with discrimination against trans people.
The excuse given "…all businesses will now have to go out of their way to ensure they do not offend [transsexuals]. The effect will be more bureaucratic worry for firms already struggling with red tape…" is oh so reminiscent of those used when the race relations act was brought in.
It's not a bureaucratic nightmare to treat people like human beings, it's actually quite simple to treat people with dignity and respect. It's more difficult, time consuming, and ultimately expensive to treat folks like they are a lump of dogshit stuck to your shoe.
ETA: A bit of digging, as it's not immediately obvious, is that the article is from May 4th, 2000. However, the point still stands that it attitude of the solicitors is and remains unacceptable.
http://www.popall.co.uk/news/2000/pubpaysdamagestobannedsexswapdrinker.asp
News: PUB PAYS DAMAGES TO BANNED SEX SWAP DRINKER
A publican's right to serve who he chooses was ended by a landmark case yesterday.
Licensee David Woodhead had banned transsexual Lisa Jones because she made his regulars feel uncomfortable as she drank in the bar.
Women customers were unhappy that the 6ft father of two, who has been living as a female for 18 months - but has not had a sex-change operation - was using the ladies' toilet.
However, 43 year-old Miss Jones launched a sex discrimination claim, backed by the Equal Opportunities Commission.
And yesterday, in an out of court settlement, Mr Woodhead agreed to pay her £1,000 compensation, gave her a written apology - and invited her back to his pub, the Jacob's Well in the village of Honley, near Huddersfield.
As well as effectively destroying a licensee's prerogative of who to serve, the decision has widespread implications for other businesses providing goods and services. All must now develop equal opportunities policies that cover transsexuals or face possible discrimination claims, according to the commission.
Yesterday, Miss Jones said she had taken legal action on principle and the decision was 'brilliant' - but she would not be returning to the pub.
'The landlord said that some of the regulars had stopped coming in because I was there and his takings were down and he would be grateful if I stopped going in' the defence worker added.
'I know I'm tall and my voice is not as feminine as it should be, but I hadn't done anything to upset the regulars. I've never been so insulted. I was upset, to say the least. I know it's difficult for people because people like me are still not accepted and are seen as freaks of Nature'.
Yesterday Mr Woodhead refused to comment. But, speaking soon after banning her, he defended the decision.
He said: 'My job is to make sure to the best of my ability that the majority of my customers enjoy the ambience and enjoy what they have come to me for many years for.'
His wife Beth added: David said it was the hardest thing he'd ever had to do. If she had been in a town centre pub there would have been less impact, but it's very difficult in a little village pub.'
There are no more than 5,000 transsexuals in the country, but all businesses will now have to go out of their way to ensure they do not offend them. The effect will be more bureaucratic worry for firms already struggling with red tape which requires them to limit working hours, give leave to parents, and administer the new state benefit, Working Families Tax Credit.
New laws introduced last year following a European Court ruling banned discrimination in jobs and training against those who have undergone 'gender reassignment.' But they did not explicitly cover the provision of goods and services.
However, the Jones case suggests that the risk of penal compensation payments now faces any business such as shops, pubs and restaurants that chooses not to serve someone because they are transsexual.
Although the case was settled out of course, it points to the way the courts will go when a full test hearing does go through. Hilary Slater, lawyer for the Equal Opportunities Commission, said yesterday: 'There is a strong argument that discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment by service providers is unlawful. We recommend that all businesses have equal opportunities policies to ensure that they do not discriminate against customers on grounds including gender reassignment.'
David Clifton of law firm Joelson Wilson, specialists in licensing law, said: 'As a pub landlord, you have an absolute right to decide who you let in or who you do not, provided you do not discriminate on grounds of race or sex. Discrimination against transsexuals is now, we think, unlawful on grounds of sexual discrimination.'
Miss Jones had never gone to the Jacob's Well as a man, but started visiting to meet a friend. She said: 'I got talking to the landlady and was invited into the social group. There was no animosity shown or hinted at. It was a pleasant and nice pub.'
Miss Jones said her children and parents understand her transsexuality. 'They are brilliant, they've been totally supportive.' Of the settlement, she said: 'The money is nice but the satisfaction is that although we didn't go to court and change the law, at least other people will now have second thoughts before discriminating. I am just said that it was me because I have lost a lot of people who I thought were friends.'
Mr Woodhead had described the scene of her first visit to the pub as astounding.
'Given that we are a local pub with a lot of regulars who are middle-aged and where there is a high incidence of many who stand at the bar and drink, when Lisa Jones came in on that first occasion dressed as a woman it was a shock.' he said.
Customers had resisted the temptation to snigger, but after subsequent visits, began to complain that they felt uncomfortable about being forced to share conversations with her.
He said: 'She said the pub had put its takings before her personal liberty but what about the personal liberties of all these other people?'
I'm pleased that the trans woman concerned won damages. However, the tone of the article is mightily offensive.
That this comes from a group of solicitors is deeply troubling, they ought to know better than to be apparently siding with discrimination against trans people.
The excuse given "…all businesses will now have to go out of their way to ensure they do not offend [transsexuals]. The effect will be more bureaucratic worry for firms already struggling with red tape…" is oh so reminiscent of those used when the race relations act was brought in.
It's not a bureaucratic nightmare to treat people like human beings, it's actually quite simple to treat people with dignity and respect. It's more difficult, time consuming, and ultimately expensive to treat folks like they are a lump of dogshit stuck to your shoe.
ETA: A bit of digging, as it's not immediately obvious, is that the article is from May 4th, 2000. However, the point still stands that it attitude of the solicitors is and remains unacceptable.