Transgender Woman's Unfair Dismissal Claim Dismissed by Employment Rights Tribunal in Barbados

Hamblin ruled: “The Laws of Barbados make absolutely no provision for the claimant to insist on being, or request to be addressed by a feminine pronoun. Similarly, no one, employer included, given the current state of the law, can be compelled to refer to the claimant by a feminine pronoun if they choose not to.”

The ERT deputy chair urged Parliament to consider amending the law “to reflect an evolving Barbadian society, a changing world view, and to meet the State’s international obligations”. She added that in the absence of a legislative framework, transgender individuals are entitled “to freedom of choice in their private life, and to basic human dignity”.

The case has highlighted the need for clearer legal protections for transgender individuals and may prompt discussions about potential legislative changes to address gender identity in the workplace — a point Hamblin raised even as she dismissed Hoffman’s claim.

Hamblin pointed out that had Hoffman pursued a claim of constructive dismissal, it “would likely have withstood the respondent’s defence of job abandonment and repudiation of the employment contract, even though the claimant had engaged in conduct which, but for the breaches identified, would have justified summary dismissal.”

The tribunal’s ruling emphasised that employers cannot arbitrarily send workers home without following proper procedures.

“Section 27 (1) of the Act was triggered immediately [after] the respondent made a unilateral decision to force the claimant to go on leave without notice and without being notified of the reasons for that action, without a hearing, a right of appeal and without pay,” Hamblin explained.

Hoffman admitted to formally applying for a clerical position under the name Alexa Hoffman. The claimant thereafter attended an interview with Bennett, identifying as Alexa Hoffman.

Hamblin said that as a result of a ‘miscommunication’, no information relating to the claimant’s gender or legal identity was disclosed to the respondent before Hoffman was hired.

“Approximately two weeks into the employment contract” the ERT’s deputy chair said, “the claimant was placed in a position where ‘I had to reveal my status as a transgender woman’. That situation arose when attorney Bennett asked the claimant certain questions relating to the origin of the surname ‘Hoffman.’”

The tribunal heard that once the identity had been revealed, Bennett not only told Hoffman that this should, and could have been done before, but that he needed the claimant to use their legal name while at work, given the nature of the job. Bennett also reasoned that the legal name was what appeared on the claimant’s identification document.

“An immediate demand by the claimant,” she continued, “to be referred to as ‘she’, upon the legal change of name, justified the employer, who vehemently protested that the request was inconsistent with the law, seeking clarification of its legal position.”

The case is certain to spark discussions about gaps in legal protections against sexual discrimination in the workplace and broader society. Hamblin called for “meaningful dialogue with the people of Barbados” to determine if and how the law should be amended to address these issues.

Nigel Bennett appeared on behalf of his law firm, while Kashka Hemans represented Hoffman. The ERT panel included trade unionist Beverley Beckles and employment law specialist Deighton Marshall, alongside deputy chair Hamblin.

emmanueljoseph@barbadostoday.bb