A VOLUNTARY ORGANISATION is to pay €5,000 compensation to a transgender man after it ordered that he be excluded from leading younger groups due to his transgender identity.

At the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), Adjudicator Orla Jones has ordered the voluntary organisation to pay the €5,000 after finding that the transgender man was discriminated against when his application to join as a leader was subjected to a vote.

Jones found that the transgender man was also subjected to discrimination when the organisation included a condition that he not be assigned to lead younger groups.  

In response to the man’s claim for discrimination on the grounds of gender under the Equal Status Act, Jones stated she was satisfied that this treatment “was due to his transgender identity which had been disclosed to the group and that it amounts to discrimination on grounds of gender”.

In calculating the level of compensation to be paid out, Jones stated that she was cognisant that this is a voluntary organisation with limited funding.

She added: “However, I am also conscious the complainant has suffered from this discrimination and felt forced to leave the organisation which he had loved contributing to.”

Jones directed that €5,000 be paid out “for the effects of the discrimination, having regard to the principle of proportionality and given that the award should be dissuasive”.

The discrimination arose from a Group Council meeting on 4 October 2022, where the complainant’s transgender identity was disclosed, which led to a vote being taken on his application to become a leader and which resulted in him being excluded from volunteering with younger groups.

The complainant became aware of this on 19 April 2024 and discovered the Council meeting minutes on 11 May 2024.

The complainant stated that becoming aware of these events and the disclosure of his transgender identity “had a devastating effect on him” given that he had lived as male for over 10 years and that only family and close friends were aware of his transition.

At hearing, the organisation admitted that it has discriminated against the complainant after its own investigation. 

A witness for the organisation stated that following the outcome of its investigation, it offered to pay for six therapy sessions for the complainant as an offer of support.

The organisation stated that the complainant refused its offer of payment for six therapy sessions.

The organisation at the hearing was very apologetic towards the complainant and outlined how the views expressed at that Council meeting were not reflective of the organisation’s culture. It advised the hearing that it has since then made efforts to train and educate all group leaders and members in trans issues and in equality and diversity.

The organisation also stated that the council decision to exclude the transgender man from leading younger groups was not done for any malicious reasons but that the intention was to protect the transgender man given that his exposure to younger groups and the questions they might ask may have been difficult for the complainant, in the organisation’s view.

The voluntary organisation stated that it had published detailed information on its website in respect of transgender issues but that it had received some complaints and backlash following these publications following claims that the material was too detailed. 

In response to two other complaints by the transgender man made under the Employment Equality Act, Jones found that the complainant was not harassed and not victimised by the respondent on grounds of gender.