An FSU member has successfully navigated the ordeal of a workplace disciplinary process with our support and guidance.
The case arose after our member – a supermarket employee in her sixties whom we’ll call ‘Tracey’ – expressed concern about the use of women’s toilets by trans-identifying colleagues.
During a brief conversation, one such colleague – who’d worked there as a man and had only recently started presenting as a woman – asked Tracey how she felt about this change of identity. Proceeding on the basis that it was a genuine question, Tracey replied honestly: “I would only have a problem if you went in women’s spaces.”
The conversation, in which Tracey also talked about the use of female toilets by other trans-identifying colleagues, prompted a formal complaint. From there, the matter escalated to an investigation meeting.
The allegations cited breaches of the company’s ‘Respect in the Workplace Policy’ for “harassment, discrimination, bullying or victimisation towards any colleague or customer” and “rude, inappropriate or offensive behaviour or comments”.
According to her employer, Tracey made further egregious statements during the investigation meeting, including:
“I did say I have an issue with the toilets because it’s a man. I would not go out of my way to offend, but I do have an issue with the toilet. The man has a penis. We have [named four trans-identifying colleagues], are we going to have everyone in the female toilets?”
“I apologise if he was offended […] but we have three trans and one non-binary staff – we are women, and we have got to be safe”.
“All I wanted to know is, are they going to be using the girls’ toilets?”
The company characterised these comments as offensive and inappropriate, framing them as a violation of workplace respect policies.
In combination with the initial workplace conversation, this led to a disciplinary hearing, where she faced allegations of gross misconduct
Ahead of the disciplinary hearing, we provided detailed guidance to help Tracey present her case effectively and protect her employment.
First, we encouraged her to point out that she was being advised by the FSU, which we know from previous experience tends to give censorially minded HR officers a certain pause for thought.
Then we advised her to redirect the discussion toward broader concerns about women’s safety and the protection of female-only spaces, rather than focusing on individual colleagues.
We also advised her to articulate her gender-critical beliefs, emphasizing that such beliefs – that sex is biological and immutable – are protected under the Equality Act.
Given Tracey’s age, and the challenges of adapting to evolving workplace norms surrounding gender ideology and self-identification, we suggested that she raise the issue of potential age discrimination.
Additionally, we highlighted the importance of context, including the significant size difference between her trans-identifying colleague and other female staff members, which compounded her discomfort.
Finally, we encouraged her to emphasize her 15-year track record at the store, her clean disciplinary record, and her history of professionalism.
After following our advice, Tracey kept her job and has proclaimed herself highly satisfied with the outcome.
Speaking following the outcome of the investigation, Tracey told us: “I would just like to thank the FSU for their full support, and especially Case Officer Rebekah Brown, who has been brilliant in the support she gave me.
“The FSU made me realise it’s okay to say and believe these things. They have been nothing short of amazing and now thankfully I will be able to enjoy my Christmas.”
