They have agreed with the Equality of Misery argument – in other words that there can be no discrimination as long as

They have agreed with the Equality of Misery argument – in other words, that there can be no discrimination as long as the employer is treating a lesbian and a gay man equally badly. The European Court of Justice has now said that this approach is nonsense and that decision is binding on the industrial tribunal.”Andrew Gilbert’s line is that “the case simply says that dismissing an employee for undergoing a sex change is in breach of the Equal Treatment Directive. It has nothing in common with Lisa Grant’s application because the issue at stake was sexual identity as opposed to sexual preference.”Whatever the merits of the relative claims, it seems likely that there will be a referral to the European Court to decide whether both the Equal Pay Act and/or the directive should prohibit discrimination against homosexuals. Of particular significance to this case is the finding that the directive applies to discrimination against transsexuals because “such discrimination is based, essentially if not exclusively, on the sex of the person concerned”.Ruth Harvey of solicitors Barnett Alexander Chart says that this argument lies at the heart of her client’s application. The only reason, she says, that the company can discriminate against Lisa Grant as a lesbian is directly linked to the fact that she is a woman.”What the English courts have tended to do is try to distinguish between the issue of gender and sexual orientation. Its solicitor, Andrew Gilbert, of Kennedys, points out that under the terms of her contract, Ms Grant enjoys the same benefits as her boss. The fact that she cannot take advantage of one of them because of her sexual orientation is not prohibited by the Act, and the employer cannot be found to have discriminated against her.

In support of this claim, it cites a recent decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal that harassment of a homosexual was not contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act as well as the decision of the Court of Appeal that gays and lesbians in the armed forces can be dismissed because of their sexual orientation.The company accepts that under the Equal Pay Act, Lisa Grant has the right to the same terms and conditions as a man – a right which, it states, has not been infringed in this case. Likewise, he says that because European law is silent on the issue, it cannot be used in support of her claim.But two days before the case was due to be heard at Southampton Industrial Tribunal, in early May, the European Court of Justice gave judgment in the case of a transsexual who claimed she had been unfairly dismissed after a sex change.Lisa Grant’s solicitor says the importance of the judgment lies in its broad interpretation of the directive. Ms Grant’s complaint is that the regulations stipulate that the partner must be of the opposite sex and that this contravenes the Equal Pay Act, thus requiring the employer to justify the difference.South West Trains has defended its actions by pointing out that there is no law which prohibits discrimination against homosexuals. Under the terms of the employer’s regulations, the travel concession may be given to a long-term partner of any employee “who has been in a meaningful relationship for two years or more with the common-law spouse”. Because our anti- discrimination legislation does not cover homosexuals – and European law does not require that it should – employers are free to treat gay and lesbian workers differently from their heterosexual colleagues A test case has now been brought to challenge that omission. Lisa Grant, a telephone-inquiry supervisor for South West Trains, told an industrial tribunal that her employer discriminated against her by failing to provide her lesbian partner with a free travel pass. The claim is being brought under the Equal Pay Act and the European Treatment Directive, using the argument that a woman should not be treated differently from a man just because of her sex.
Ms Grant is alleging that it was discriminatory to provide her immediate boss with a pass for his unmarried female partner while denying a similar concession to Jill Percey, her partner for many years.

British equality law is in the dock again, this time for allegedly failing to protect the employment rights of a lesbian worker who claims she was treated less favourably than a heterosexual man. The article alleged a corrupt relationship between the two men.A second article focused on movements of shares between the county council and the Miss World Group, which was also owned by Oyston.Subsequent inquiries by the Takeover Panel, the City watchdog, cleared all concerned of impropriety.. Together, the two payouts make the allegations the most costly ever made by a newspaper.Yesterday’s settlement, made only minutes before a full-scale libel hearing was due to begin at the High Court in London, has its roots in a article published in September 1989 about a joint venture between between Mr Bookbinder and Oyston. STEVE BOGGAN

A county council leader who was accused of corrupt share dealings with the disgraced media tycoon, Owen Oyston, accepted six-figure libel damages yesterday from the Sunday Times.
David Bookbinder, former Labour leader of Derbyshire County Council, described the seven-year libel case as “a nightmare” and estimated that the story had cost the newspaper “just under a million” in costs and damages.Five years ago, the Sunday Times paid out an estimated pounds 1.2m in costs and damages to Oyston – who was jailed for the rape of a 16-year-old girl last month – over the same story.

Pre- family women seem to have a more sober outlook on life than men, wanting to be seen as loyal, intelligent, sensible and sensitive. Men, on the other hand, want to be seen as active, sporty and attractive to the opposite sex. Some things never change.Pre-family Lifestyles: Mintel, 18-19 Long Lane, London EC1A 9HE: pounds 8.95. LEGAL NOTE: Legal Message: Correction The Miss World Group was not owned by Oyston. But men are also more likely than women to be fashion victims with 16 per cent, compared with less than one in 10 pre-family women, saying they buy whatever is in fashion each season.There are glimmers of hope for equality in terms of domestic tasks as married or cohabiting men are more likely than their single equivalents to say they enjoy cooking.Outside the home, however, for this stylish, self-conscious age group, there are great differences in the way the sexes want to be seen. Four out of 10 say they want to work abroad in the next 10 years, and nearly the same amount aim to develop their own business. This is compared to less than 20 per cent of all adults.As the millennium approaches the number of adults aged 20 to 34 will decrease.