Nurse Peggie, holding gender-critical beliefs, objected to a trans woman colleague using female changing facilities at Victoria Hospital. The matter escalated to an Employment Tribunal following her suspension.

• Dr Upton, a trans woman, used female facilities following employer policy.

• Nurse Peggie appeared to compare Dr Upton to a sex offender, which was ruled impermissible and constituted harassment.

• The ET found Nurse Peggie’s suspension and the employer’s procedural delays created further harassment.

• No claims succeeded against Dr Upton individually.

• ET emphasised that using a facility itself does not constitute harassment.

Key takeaways for employers:

• Employers can allow trans individuals to use facilities aligned with their gender identity but must manage disputes sensitively.

• Explore alternatives (e.g. changes to shifts, temporary facilities) and respond promptly to complaints.

• Document decisions and ensure balanced consideration of competing rights.

Lockwood, assigned female at birth, transitioned to non-binary. Some records and internal processes continued to reflect their birth gender, leading to complaints of misgendering.

• The Employer updated records, supported name and pronoun changes, and apologised for misgendering incidents.

• The ET found that the incidents did not create a hostile or degrading environment.

• Lockwood was found to have contributed to the perceived issues by not accepting apologies and adopting an inflexible stance.

• Importantly, the ET ruled that gender fluidity is not protected under the Equality Act in this context.

Key takeaways for employers:

• Clear communication, record updates, and prompt corrective actions help mitigate complaints.

• According to this case, non-binary or gender-fluid individuals may not always have the same statutory protection as those undergoing gender reassignment.

• Employers should document support provided and staff responses to complaints.

Ms Kelly raised concerns about trans women using female toilets and the redesignation of facilities. The employer introduced unisex single-occupancy toilets, which reduced the number of female-only facilities available.

• Claims included sex discrimination and harassment; ET dismissed all claims.

• The ET found that trans women had already been using female toilets without incident.

• Ms Kelly experienced no specific detriment, and unisex facilities were available.

• The ET noted that consultation and consideration of equality impacts were important considerations for all employers.

Key Takeaway for Employers:

• Engage staff when reviewing facility access policies.

• Provide alternatives (e.g. single-occupancy toilets) to help balance competing rights.

• Maintain clear records and evidence of consultation and policy rationale.

Female employees objected to a trans woman using female changing rooms. The employer maintained a policy allowing use based on gender identity, leading to claims of harassment and discrimination.

• ET confirmed harassment and indirect sex discrimination due to the policy’s impact on women.

• Policy prioritised perceived rights of trans employees over women’s single-sex rights without objective justification.

• The ET highlighted the need to assess the disproportionate impact on specific groups.

Key Takeaway for Employers:

• Carefully assess policies affecting single-sex facilities.

• Consider alternatives and implement proportionate measures to protect all staff.

• Document rationale and ensure competing rights are balanced. Do not allow one protected characteristic to have hierarchy over another.

This is an evolving area of law with further appeals and litigation expected. Employers are advised to review their policies and seek legal guidance when handling sensitive issues relating to gender identity, single-sex spaces, and protected beliefs.

Key takeaways for employers:

• The Supreme Court confirmed that “sex” within the meaning of the Equality Act refers to biological sex, but this does not automatically resolve questions about access to facilities.

• ETs expect employers to demonstrate thoughtful, evidence-based processes: consult affected staff, assess risks, and implement proportionate measures.

• Accommodate different workstyles where possible.

• Decisions should be clearly documented, and care must be taken to ensure one set of protected characteristics is not prioritised over another.

• Each situation should be assessed on its facts, and solutions should aim to accommodate all parties fairly.