Transsexual turned down for job as woman Pc
By Barbie Dutter
A TRANSSEXUAL was turned down for the job of a woman police constable because she would be unable to perform routine duties such as searching suspects, a tribunal heard yesterday.
She had passed the initial recruitment tests to join the West Midlands force, but when she told officers that she had undergone a sex change operation, her application was refused. A letter telling her why she had been turned down said that it would be “inappropriate” for a transsexual to conduct body searches or deal with rape victims.
The 29-year-old Birmingham woman, who can be identified only as “M”, has brought a case against the Chief Constable of West Midlands alleging sex discrimination and claiming compensation for loss of opportunity and injury to feelings.
The force claims that, despite the surgery, she is still legally a man and would be unable to search suspects under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which states that such searches must be conducted by officers of the same sex.
The hearing in Birmingham was told that M, who works as a technician with an office equipment firm, had changed her name and a number of official documents to reflect her new gender after having the surgery in August, 1994. On her original application form for the job of WPc, she stated that she was having hormone treatment and that she had had corrective surgery, but did not specify that it was a sex change. M told the tribunal that she had done this on the advice of a medical officer with West Midlands police.
After being informed that she had been successful in the initial stages, M was told that an extended assessment and medical examination would follow. She was asked to bring her school certificates with her, which were in her old, male name. Realising this posed a potential problem, M telephoned the recruitment department and informed them that she had been a man until her operation in 1994. A constable told her that he would need to seek advice from his superiors, and would write to her informing her of the outcome.
’Due to your gender reassignment you would be precluded by law from undertaking certain routine duties that all police officers are required to perform on a daily basis, for example the searching of persons in custody’
“The letter told me I need not attend the next extended assessment. There was never any face-to-face contact after that and to all intent and purposes my application for a position of police constable was over,” said M.
In November of last year, M received a letter from the head of personnel with West Midlands police, outlining the force’s reasons for turning down her application. It stated that “due to your gender reassignment you would be precluded by law from undertaking certain routine duties that all police officers are required to perform on a daily basis, for example the searching of persons in custody”.
The letter went on: “Further to the above, practice and procedure will often dictate that an officer of a certain sex will deal with a particular incident such as rape or indecent assault. Due to your reassignment, it would be innappropriate for you to undertake these roles.”
M, who wore a black trouser suit and lilac satin shirt, with her blonde hair in a short bob, said that she wanted to join the police because she felt she had few prospects in her current job and had a desire to “serve people and serve my community”. She would have no difficulties in dealing with victims of rape or domestic violence, she said.
Roger Wardle, Assistant Chief Constable with West Midlands Police, said that the force had made many inquiries in relation to the application after finding out that M had formerly been a man. It had sought advice from its legal department and equal opportunities team, as well as from other police forces and the Home Office.
While the force had no specific policy relating to transsexuals, it insisted that anyone applying for the job of a police officer must be able to carry out the full range of duties, Mr Wardle said.
The tribunal continues.
Next day’s hearing
Tribunal decision, January 1997
| 
