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 reasonable within 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 gender were 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 drag queen , and a worker from the adjacent grocery store, who was outside the bottle shop, laughed. Later, when the woman went into the grocery store, she confronted the worker about the incident and he refused her service and required her to leave the premises.

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 gender identity as a ground of discrimination, and to define lawful sexual activity as the status of being a lawful sex worker. Before those amendments, lawful sexual activity meant activity such as homosexual activity.

M v A and U [2007] QADT 8 — liability
M v A and U [2007] QADT 23 — compensation

Back to top

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:

  • A statement of regret, particularly about distress caused by the request for hospital documentation;
  • Change of the policy on gender affirmation and transition to ensure clarity about which support documents are required for a name change; and
  • General damages of $6000.

Back to top

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:

  • financial assistance for a new birth certificate and passport;
  • establishment of an LGBTI working group; and
  • development of new practice guidelines.

Housing service learns from trans complaint

Type of outcome Conciliation
Contravention Discrimination
Attribute Gender identity
Area Accommodation
Outcome details

Anti-discrimination training for staff
LGBTI awareness and support training for staff
Reimbursement of removal costs
Inclusivity statement for website

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:

  • pay the woman’s removal costs;
  • write an inclusivity statement for their website;
  • train all staff on the Anti-Discrimination Act ;
  • provide specific LGBTI awareness training to all staff; and
  • develop a LGBTI referral list to better support their trans & gender diverse clients.

Back to top

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:

  • pay the woman $1500 as compensation;
  • donate $500 to a transgender support group;
  • review policies, and implement a policy covering how positive interactions with members of the transgender community should be conducted; and
  • organise anti-discrimination training for the security guard.

The retail precinct management agreed to:

  • pay the woman $2000 as compensation;
  • donate $1000 to a transgender support group;
  • review policies and procedures, and implement a policy and procedure that allows trans people to use bathrooms according to their identified gender; and
  • organise anti-discrimination training at a managerial level.

Back to top