Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the first respondent harassed the claimant by: (a) failing to revoke permission for the second respondent (a trans woman) to use the female staff changing room from 16 September 2023 until rota arrangements were made on 14 April 2024; (b) taking an unreasonable length of time (more than six months) to investigate allegations against the claimant; (c) making reference to patient care allegations on 28 March 2024; and (d) giving an instruction on 5 July 2024 not to discuss the case until clarified on 22 July 2024. Other harassment allegations failed.
The claimant's harassment claim related to her gender-critical belief (protected under s10) failed. The tribunal found that while some conduct related to the protected characteristic, the specific allegations beyond those upheld as sex-based harassment were not established.
The claim of direct discrimination because of sex did not succeed. The tribunal concluded that the treatment complained of was not because of the claimant's sex.
The claim of direct discrimination because of the claimant's gender-critical belief did not succeed. The tribunal found the treatment was not because of that belief.
The claim of indirect discrimination in relation to sex did not succeed. The tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant had established the elements of indirect discrimination.
The claim of indirect discrimination in relation to the claimant's gender-critical belief did not succeed. The necessary elements were not established.
Sexual harassment under s26(2) of the Equality Act 2010 was claimed but did not succeed. The conduct complained of was not of a sexual nature as required by the section.
Harassment by rejection of harassment under s26(3) did not succeed. The tribunal was not satisfied this provision was engaged on the facts.
The claim of victimisation under s27 of the Act did not succeed. The tribunal found that the claimant had not established the necessary elements of protected acts and subsequent detriment because of those acts.
Facts
The claimant, a female nurse with 30 years' service at Fife Health Board, held gender-critical beliefs. The second respondent, a trans woman junior doctor, was granted permission to use the female staff changing room at Victoria Hospital Emergency Department. The claimant and second respondent encountered each other in the changing room on 25 October 2023 and around midnight on 24-25 December 2023. The second respondent made a complaint against the claimant. The first respondent conducted an investigation over a lengthy period. The claimant brought claims of harassment, discrimination and victimisation based on sex and belief.
Decision
The tribunal found the first respondent liable for harassment related to sex under s26(1) on four specific grounds: failing to revoke permission for the second respondent to use the female changing room from September 2023 to April 2024, taking an unreasonable time to investigate (over six months), making reference to patient care allegations, and giving unclear instructions about discussing the case. All other claims including direct and indirect discrimination, victimisation, and claims against the second respondent personally were dismissed.
Practical note
Employers must carefully balance the competing rights of employees with gender-critical beliefs and trans employees, particularly regarding single-sex facilities, and ensure investigations into complaints between such employees are conducted promptly and fairly.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4104864/2024
- Decision date
- 8 December 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 22
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- NHS Fife
- Sector
- —
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Nurse
- Service
- 30 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister