Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover Ltd (Case No. 1304471/2018)
Rose Taylor, who identifies as gender fluid / non-binary, brought claims of harassment and direct discrimination against Jaguar Land Rover. The Employment…
Authority catalogue v1.13.298 data current as of
- Citation
- Case No. 1304471/2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Year
- 2020
- Status
- Persuasive
- Certainty
- Evolving
In brief
Rose Taylor, who identifies as gender fluid / non-binary, brought claims of harassment and direct discrimination against Jaguar Land Rover. The Employment Tribunal found that the claimant was protected under s.7 of the Equality Act 2010 (gender reassignment) and that JLR had discriminated against and harassed the claimant because of gender reassignment. Compensation of £180,000 was awarded (later subject to costs proceedings).
Key provisions
- holding-1 — Non-binary and gender-fluid identities fall within s.7 gender reassignment protection : Non-binary and gender-fluid identities fall within the scope of s.7 EA2010 gender reassignment protection, as the person is undergoing or proposing to undergo a process of reassigning their sex.
- holding-2 — No requirement for medical treatment to be protected under s.7 : No requirement for medical treatment to trigger s.7 protection. The Act protects anyone proposing to undergo a process of reassigning their sex, regardless of medical intervention.
- holding-3 — Employer liability for failing to address workplace harassment : An employer is liable for failing to address workplace harassment related to gender reassignment, including harassment by colleagues that the employer knew or ought to have known about.
When relevant
Designing inclusive policies for non-binary and gender-fluid employees. Demonstrates that s.7 protection extends beyond the traditional 'transition from one binary gender to the other' model.
Take this further
Assess your organisation
See how your policies and practice measure up against this authority — and the other 124 in the catalogue — with the toolkit's free diagnostic.
Related reading
Related authorities
- Chessington World of Adventures Ltd v Reed [1998] ICR 97 (EAT)
- Bailey v Stonewall Equality Ltd & Others (Case No. 2202172/2020)
- Hutchinson & Others v County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust (Case No. 2501192/2024 & Others)
- Lockwood v Cheshire and Wirral NHS Foundation Trust [2025] ET 2401211/2024
Browse the full authority catalogue or the toolkit's resources hub for more context.
Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.