Gender identity case studies
The gender identity discrimination case summaries are grouped into two categories: court and tribunal decisions, and conciliated outcomes.
Warning: These are real life examples and contain language or content that may offend.
Court and tribunal decisions are made after all the evidence is heard, including details of loss and damage. The full text of court and tribunal decisions is available from:
Conciliated outcomes are where the parties have reached an agreement through conciliation at the Queensland Human Rights Commission.
Court and tribunal decisions
Misgendering a transgender prisoner
| Type of outcome | Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Appeal Tribunal |
| Contravention | Discrimination |
| Attribute | Gender Identity |
| Area | Administration of State laws and programs |
| Outcome details | OutcomeAppeal upheld in part |
| Compensation | Apology |
| Year | 2020 |
| Summary: A transgender woman was incarcerated in a male high security prison. Prison officers referred to her as a man, and used male pronouns (misgendering). She was put on Intensive Management Plans to mitigate her sexually-laden behaviour. The woman complained that the conduct was discrimination of her on the basis of her gender identity, and that the prison required her to be a man. She appealed the decision of the tribunal that found she was not treated less favourably and the conduct was not otherwise discrimination of her. The Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 has a modified application in the prison setting. Discrimination will not be unlawful if the conduct is reasonablewithin the correctional environment, and the payment of compensation is limited. The Appeal Tribunal found there was an error in the tribunal’s decision in considering whether there had been indirect discrimination of the woman by using male pronouns(for example, he, rather than she). It considered that the use of male pronouns in addressing and referring to the woman amounted to a term being imposed that she identify as a man. She could not comply with this term because it required her to compromise her gender identity, and a higher proportion of prisoners without the attribute could comply with it. There was also error in not considering submissions about the factors set out in the Corrective Services Act for considering whether conduct was reasonable. The Appeal Tribunal noted that the good order and security of the prison is not the sole or paramount consideration that is relevant, and the cost and resource implications of requiring prison staff to address transgender prisoners by their acquired genderwere not of sufficient weight to justify the discriminatory practice of using male pronouns to address the woman. Relevant to considering reasonableness was that the Custodial Operations Practice Directive (which is an operational guide) has been changed to require transgender prisoners to be referred to in a manner consistent with their gender identity. It was also relevant that the woman’s suggestion that she be called by her name was an option available under the Custodial Operations Practice Directive at the time. The Appeal Tribunal concluded that the treatment of the woman in referring to her by male pronouns was indirect discrimination, and was not reasonable within the meaning of the Anti-Discrimination Act and the Corrective Services Act. However, there was no error in the tribunal finding that the Intensive Management Plans focused on addressing overt sexual behaviour that is not a characteristic of the attribute of gender identity, and was not less favourable treatment on the basis of gender identity. Even if the plans had been discriminatory, the Appeal Tribunal considered it would find they were reasonable in the circumstances. The Appeal Tribunal agreed that there was no bad faith on the part of the respondents, which meant that a remedy of compensation was not available. The tribunal ordered the respondents to make a private apology to the woman. It was not necessary to make orders for the implementation of policies, because it is now a requirement that transgender prisoners are addressed consistently with their gender identity. Tafao v State of Queensland [2020] QCATA 76 | |
Abuse and threat of violence of transgender person
| Type of outcome | Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision |
| Contravention | Gender idendity vilification and sexual harassment |
| Outcome details | Complaint upheld |
| Compensation | $15,000 |
| Year | 2011 |
Summary: A transgender woman was woken late at night by yelling from the footpath outside her home. A group of people, including a neighbour, were calling out abuse such as "You f***ing faggot, you have your f***ing dick in a jar". The neighbour then wrenched a wooden paling from the fence and shouted "Has anyone got a box of matches so we can burn the f***ing faggot's place down?" The tribunal found this form of gang-style violence constituted sexual harassment, vilification on the grounds of gender identity, as well as the offence of serious vilification, which is punishable by imprisonment or fine. The woman was terrified and experienced anxiety and stress, and she continued to feel unsafe around her home. The tribunal awarded compensation of $10,000 for vilification and $5,000 for sexual harassment. Brosnahan v Ronoff [2011] QCAT 439 (16 August 2011) | |
Refusal of service
| Type of outcome | Anti-Discrimination Tribunal Queensland decision |
| Contravention | Discrimination |
| Attribute | *Sex, and lawful sexual activity |
| Area | Providing goods or services |
| Outcome details | Financial compensation |
| Compensation | $9,000 |
| Year | 2007 |
Summary: As a transgender woman (who was also a sex worker) walked down the street, a worker in a bottle shop yelled out to her Compensation was awarded as follows: $5,000 (general damages); $3,000 (lost income); $500 (outlays); and $500 (interest). *The conduct in this complaint occurred before the Act was amended to include M v A and U [2007] QADT 8 — liability | |
Conciliated outcomes
Trans student not supported at school
| Type of outcome | Conciliation |
| Contravention | Discrimination |
| Attribute | Gender identity |
| Area | Education |
| Outcome details |
Policy review Compensation |
| Year | 2019 |
Summary: A transgender boy was enrolled at co-ed independent school as a girl, but during the course of his schooling started to identify as male. He formally changed his name and pronouns. A number of issues arose after his transition including staff refusing to use his correct name and male pronouns, not being able to access either a boy’s toilet or unisex toilet, not having access to the male uniform, being required to dress in feminine attire at the school formal, and being directed to stay in female accommodation at the school camp. The matter was resolved in conciliation on the basis of substantial financial compensation and a review of the school policies | |
Trans employee and changes to payroll
| Type of outcome | Conciliation |
| Contravention | Discrimination |
| Attribute | Gender identity |
| Area | Work |
| Outcome details |
Statement of regret Policy change Compensation |
| Compensation | $6000 |
| Year | 2018 |
Summary: A transgender woman requested to change her name on the payroll system. She was asked by her employer to provide formal paperwork, either a passport or “hospital documents of the procedure”. The complainant had provided a Medicare card and driver’s licence but these were not documents accepted under the name change policy. The complainant felt embarrassed and hurt about being asked to provide documents to confirm her gender change. The parties agreed to resolve the matter on the following outcomes:
| |
Trans young person in care wanted records changed
| Type of outcome | Conciliation |
| Contravention | Discrimination |
| Attribute | Gender identity |
| Area | State laws and programs |
| Outcome details |
Financial assistance Change in practice |
Summary: A young person came out as trans to his Child Safety Officer (CSO). Soon after this, he was diagnosed with gender dysphoria by a specialist psychologist. He alleged he had to wait 6 months to start puberty blockers, which he considered an unreasonable delay. He says he was advised by a CSO that he could not change his name or pronoun on records because his former female name was on his birth certificate. He claimed that the CSO would also not assist him to have a passport issued in the correct gender. During conciliation the parties agreed to settle the matter on the following basis:
| |
Housing service learns from trans complaint
| Type of outcome | Conciliation |
| Contravention | Discrimination |
| Attribute | Gender identity |
| Area | Accommodation |
| Outcome details | Anti-discrimination training for staff |
| Year | 2017 |
Summary: A transwoman living in community housing was subjected to ongoing and persistent transphobic verbal harassment and threats of violence from other tenants. She said that when she complained to her housing provider, the service said that they "couldn't do anything" about the abuse. The housing provider contended that they had treated her case like any other tenant who complained about neighbours’ behaviour, but expressed regret that the woman felt that their response was inadequate and that she felt it was necessary to leave. Prior to conciliation, the woman secured new accommodation at a Department of Housing property. Her priority had been escalated because it was no longer safe for her to remain in the community housing accommodation During conciliation, the community housing provider agreed to:
| |
Trans woman refused access to women’s toilet
| Type of outcome | Conciliation |
| Contravention | Discimination |
| Attribute | Gender identity |
| Area | Goods and services |
| Outcome details |
Compensation Donation to charity Policy change / change in practice Anti-discrimination training undertaken |
| Compensation | $3,500 |
| Year | 2016 |
Summary: While at a popular retail precinct, a trans woman went to use the women’s toilets, but was stopped by a centre security guard. The woman said that the security guard told her he had been instructed by centre management to ensure that she was directed to use the men's toilet, and that ‘people like me were not allowed to use the women’s toilet’. At conciliation, two separate agreements were reached: one with the company that employed the security guard, and one with the retail precinct management. The security company agreed to:
The retail precinct management agreed to:
| |