News Live Article: South African Transgender Woman Fired From Job Due To Sex Change.

Fired for sex change

Employed as a man, now a woman and out of a job

Jul 13, 2010 10:42 PM | By SALLY EVANS

---

Chris Ehlers, a 43-year-old part way through a sex change, has taken her employer to court for discriminating against her since she became “Christine”.

I will never have respect for a wannabe woman

The case will be heard by the Labour Court over three days next week.

Ehlers was fired after her employers, the multinational steel retailer Bohler Uddeholm Africa, found that she had begun a series of sex change procedures in 2008. She claims in court papers that she was fired as a sales representative for the company “on the grounds of her sexual status”.

Ehlers said she was badly treated by her colleagues because she had “commenced her reassignment procedure”.

She was due to undergo the final operation for her transformation in September, but since her dismissal had been unable to pay for it.

In June 2008, Ehlers stated that she formally complained to her superiors about a colleague who was being “disrespectful”. The statement refers to two SMSs sent to Ehlers by her colleague.

One message said: “I will never have respect for a low-class and a wannabe woman.”

The inquiry into Ehlers’ grievance went against her, and she was given two options by the chairman. She was told either to revert to being a man, as she was when she started working for the company, or accept a redundancy order and severance benefits.

But in January last year, Ehlers was dismissed after another inquiry found that there was a breach in the relationship in general, which had been “seriously prejudiced by the employee”, which led to the termination of her job.

Ehlers appealed against the decision, but her appeal was dismissed. In court papers, Ehlers refers to the findings of the inquiry: “It was also determined in discussion with management that the position is distinctly for a male employee and the applicant (Ehlers) [has] already got distinct female features that create a difficult situation.”

The chairman of the committee, a Mr du Toit, states: “In the end, the employer has to protect its business and may demand a certain standard of acceptability from its representatives in relation to its customers.

“I find myself in a difficult situation in that the employee argues that she can still function in the exact same manner as she would have as a man. The employer argues, on the contrary, that it is an international concern that has to protect its image in the market in the metal industry, which is predominantly male-orientated.”

Ehlers worked for the company as a freelancer for three months at the end of 2007, until she was offered a permanent position in January 2008, at about which time she began her transformation.

Court papers argue: “The respondent dismissed the applicant despite the fact that she has the necessary occupational qualification, skill and knowledge for the capacity in which she was employed.”

In court papers, Ehlers’ lawyer, Andre Schmidt, argues that Ehlers’ dismissal is an infringement of her constitutional right to not be unfairly discriminated against as an employee because of her gender, sex, sexual orientation or beliefs.

Despite attempts by Ehlers to have her grievance taken up by the Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council in March 2009, the dispute remained unresolved and a certificate of non-resolution was issued.

Ehlers was offered a R150 000 settlement, which she refused, stating that she wanted to be reinstated in her position, for which she earned R243 700 a year.

In their opposing statement to the Labour Court, Bohler Uddeholm Africa argue that Ehlers “at the date of appointment did not disclose that he intended or had commenced on the process of a sex change. When this was disclosed later it was agreed between the parties that the applicant would hide the effects of the process by dressing as he used to in a male fashion when visiting customers to protect the image of the respondent.”

After Ehlers’ ID book was changed to reflect her new name, and when a psychiatrist had written a letter to her company saying that she needed to wear women’s clothes “to aid the transformation process”, Bohler Uddeholm Africa argued that: “As a result of the above, the respondent was forced to implement the second option of personal redundancy. Through her actions, the applicant had created a situation where her continued presence in the office had become impractical and where the respondent’s image in the industry had become compromised.”