From the Daily Mail:
Vikki-Marie Gaynor, 37, who was born a man, claims bosses started cancelling his shifts when he dropped his old name, Mike, and started wearing women's clothes, earrings and make-up to work.
The harassment by coworkers got worse and worse to the point where Gaynor was no longer able to go to work:
Mr Gaynor, from Wallasey, Wirral, also claims his belongings and makeup were removed from his lorry and dumped in a disabled lavatory. He added: 'Other drivers, who I'd previously got on well with, started ignoring me.
'I began to notice people talking about me and on one occasion a driver backed away from me while covering his backside and muttering under his breath.
'Another time a colleague made an obscene gesture as we pulled up to a set of traffic lights together.'
She could get over 10,000 pounds if the tribunal accepts her claim.
One thing on the Daily Mail article itself: why do they have to refer to Gaynor with he/him/Mr., when she's presenting herself as female, and the journalist acknowledges that she's presenting herself as female? The photo was even captioned with "Mr Gaynor as Vikki-Marie", as if she's just pulling a prank. Is there some international copy-editing rule out there that I'm not familiar with that says you can only refer to someone with pronouns that go with their birth genitalia?