I don't know, today was a ->-bleeped-<-ty day - I've been working in a team for a little over a year which has a long history of management turnover due to a toxic environment in this specific team so I've made it clear since September 2016 that I want out of this team.

Since announcing to my senior leadership on the 1st March that I am transitioning and beginning medical treatment I have on 1 occasion (in May) been denied the opportunity to apply for a vacant role and the second time (in June), despite applying even though the role wasn't advertised, the role was given to someone else who had a preferred skill rather than a required skill (he had historical experience in the team but zero experience of managing anyone) without my application ever being discussed with me which again I think is an unfair selection process.

While I'm not officially out to everyone at work, with physical and grooming changes, it is not unreasonable that people have started to infer (longer hair, manicured nails, small breast development) so I've become hyper aware of when we don't follow the correct processes.

So today I'm really annoyed, I'm conscious that my hormone dose has just been increased and maybe that's leading me to over-react or get overtly emotional about it - which it probably is but the urge to rage quit was incredibly strong.

I didn't,  I've calculated that between today and my first day off for the transition is 71 weeks. I'm on annual leave for 11 of those weeks and I have substantial stock earnings due to me over those weeks (100% of annual salary) which I would forfeit if I left.

People have stayed in ->-bleeped-<-tier jobs than this so, I'm going to stick it out - angry, for sure, taking this week off for stress to settle myself and clear my mind and then start counting down the weeks. There is another team I don't really want to work in but it might be worth doing in the medium term.

Question for the readers - would you file a formal grievance that the selection process for internal roles is discriminatory as it doesn't give everyone the opportunity to apply and also because the selection process itself is not objective and transparent? Is that career ending? I feel like it gives me some documentary evidence and potentially changes what is at the moment a jobs for the boys club?

I don't want the outcome of who got offered these roles changed but I do want recognition that the process that was used is discriminatory. I also don't actually expect to stay at my current employer post transition so I'm not super bothered for the very long term consequences, just for the next 2 years.

I'm quite sure whether this exactly counts as discrimination. You might have been turned down for the role simply because you're not as well liked as the other person or because the person in charge is put off by you being feminine (which would obviously be discrimination).

I would put a formal grievance in anyway so that the matter can be looked into and attach a copy of the Equality Act 2010 which prohibits discrimination based on gender expression, gender identity and sexuality.

Even though you're only going to be there for the next 2 years it's possible that you could receive more instances of this; which would be detrimental to your mental health and self confidence. Also it may help other people in your workplace in future if your workplace is aware this kind of discrimination can occur and is possibly occurring.

Sophie,

I'm not an HR professional but I am based in the UK and have worked on the periphery of HR for a number of years so I have a little knowledge here but I am not an employment law specialist and so my advice comes with the obvious disclaimer.

First of all, in the UK, discrimination based on gender reassignment is just as illegal as racial or sex discrimination.  Therefore, if the issues you have articulated have arisen purely because you are transitioning, your employers have acted unlawfully.  The problem, of course, is proving it.  There are many instances of discrimination against certain groups occurring every day - groups such as women of childbearing age, women wearing headscarfs, people in their 50s, the disabled to name a few.  Of course, as we know from the press, any recruiter that says 'I'm not employing you because you're bound to go and have children' or 'sorry, no headscarfs' very quickly lands themself in hot water.  And it's the same for the TG community.  The solution, of course, is to set the recruitment parameters such that another candidate will score higher than the candidate from the group to be excluded and good recruiters will retain an audit trail to prove that they went through due and fair process.

In your position, I think there are a couple of things you could consider:

1.  Look for a pattern; has the attitude of your management changed since you revealed your intentions - in particular, can you provide specific examples of similar incidences before and after the reveal where the outcomes have been different?  If so, you've got stronger prima facie evidence of discrimination; they could, of course, try to say that you have been affected by the hormones but, as half of the population is already on oestrogen, mostly without issue, to my mind that would provide greater evidence of discrimination.

2.  Make a friend in HR, if your company has an HR department.  HR professionals tend to be obsessive about employment law and a word in the right place may well filter back down to where you need it.

As for raising a grievance, always a difficult call as it doesn't tend to endear you to your organisation but if they did make life intolerable and force you out as a result, I'm sure a tribunal would have a field day.

I hope that this is some help.

Thanks for the comments, I've put in a grievance but emphasised I'm willing to resolve it informally in the first instance. I'm close to our HR business partner so I actually think that could help.

In general, employers can't simply pick who they like best, especially if someone has a protected characteristic - both our internal policies and the equality act forbid it. Denying someone the ability to apply for a role (ie: by inviting someone or having an informal chat is also forbidden) so it's fairly clear cut they've acted against our own policies.

Saying that, I do want to stay or if I do leave I would need to negotiate a substantial settlement agreement which would be less than ideal.

Sorry you had to experience. I'm form the USA but have a long history of working with HR departments and i know it can be frustrating. I'm glad you filed a grievance.

Hiring managers need to understand that simply "hiring people they like personally" or have a greater affinity too, robs the company of the benefits of diversity, different perspectives, experiences etc.

Before i was self-employed and was a hiring manager, i often questioned my assumptions about candidates, in many instances i went with the candidate that was far different than me because i felt the team needed someone like him or her on it. It made me better to step out of my bubble.