Claimant v Cheshire and Wirral NHS Foundation Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
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
Statutes
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