Cases2401211/2024

Claimant v Cheshire and Wirral NHS Foundation Trust

6 October 2025Before Employment Judge BensonLiverpoolin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Harassment(gender reassignment)failed

The tribunal found that the claimant, who is non-binary, does not have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment under section 7 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal held that section 7 requires a process of reassigning sex from one biological sex to the other. As the claimant does not intend to transition from female to male, they do not fall within the definition. Additionally, even if the claimant had the protected characteristic, the tribunal found that while the conduct was unwanted and related to the claimant's non-binary status, it was not reasonable for the conduct to have the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the claimant, taking into account the lack of intent, the immediate apologies, the pressures on staff, the unfamiliarity with non-binary identities, and the claimant's unforgiving approach.

Facts

The claimant, who identifies as non-binary and uses they/them pronouns, brought harassment claims related to gender reassignment against their NHS employer and six individual colleagues. The claims related to nine incidents between October 2023 and January 2024, primarily involving the use of incorrect pronouns or the claimant's deadname (Heather Lockwood, which they changed to Haech Lockwood). The claimant had previously raised grievances about ICT system issues with their name in 2022, which were largely resolved. The 2023-2024 incidents involved misgendering by ICT staff, a vaccination clinic nurse, a colleague (Yvette Dunn), and issues with historic contracts and patient allocation.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed all claims. It held that the claimant does not have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment under section 7 Equality Act 2010, because that provision requires a process of reassigning sex from one biological sex to the other, and the claimant has no intention to transition from female to male. Even if the claimant had the protected characteristic, the tribunal found that while the conduct was unwanted and related to the claimant's non-binary status, it was not reasonable for it to have the effect of creating the environment required by section 26, given the lack of intent, immediate apologies, staff pressures, unfamiliarity with non-binary identities, and the claimant's inflexible approach.

Practical note

Non-binary individuals who do not intend to transition from one biological sex to the other may not fall within the definition of gender reassignment under section 7 Equality Act 2010, following the Supreme Court's clarification in For Women Scotland that sex is biological and binary.

Legal authorities cited

Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593R(Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for HealthTaylor v JLR Limited [Employment Tribunal] 1304471/2018R(AA) v National Health Service Commissioning Board (NHS England) [2023] EWHC 43 (Admin)For Women Scotland Limited v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board v Hughes EAT 0179/13Pemberton v Inwood [2018] ICR 1291Weeks v Newham College of Further Education EAT 0630/11

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.26Equality Act 2010 s.7

Case details

Case number
2401211/2024
Decision date
6 October 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
7
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Therapist

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister