A recent press article notes a disturbing Tribunal decision: ‘Humiliated’: Trans worker awarded $35,000 in landmark ‘dead-name’ ruling (The Australian; 17 Sept 2026; paywalled). It is a case worthy of comment here because a casual reading might suggest that merely calling a trans person by a former name, of its own would amount to unlawful discrimination. That is not what the case holds. However, as will be seen, what the case does hold in fact seems to be wrong.
In short, an employee of the Northern NSW Local Health District (part of the NSW Health Service) applied for an internal transfer to a new role, and following the standard system of employee checks, the employee was asked to confirm any previous names. The employee, “HGY”, had to reveal that they had been born with classically female names and now bore classically male names. This distressed them, because the person making the enquiry was known to them, and would be part of the panel conducting the interview. This, HGY said, led to fear that once their former names were known, they would be “outed” as transgender and potentially suffer harassment and discrimination.
The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) ruled in HGY v Secretary, Ministry of Health in respect of Northern NSW Local Health District [2026] NSWCATAD 278 (16 September 2026) that the Department was guilty of “indirect gender identity discrimination”, and ordered that they pay HGY $35,000. Here I will aim to explain what was, and was not, decided, and why in my view the decision was incorrect.
