A recent employment tribunal involving an NHS Trust, a group of nurses, and a trans woman has brought renewed attention to the complex task public bodies face when navigating competing protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. The judgment found that the Trust failed in its duty of care to its staff, while also confirming that no unlawful conduct was committed by the trans woman at the centre of the dispute. The case sits within a broader legal framework shaped by recent court decisions on the protection of gender‑critical beliefs.

The Tribunal’s Findings on the NHS Trust

The tribunal concluded that the NHS Trust failed to protect the dignity and rights of several nurses who raised concerns about the use of the women’s changing facilities. The judgment identified organisational shortcomings, including unclear communication, inadequate support, and a lack of effective management of staff concerns. These failings created an environment that the tribunal described as distressing and undermining for the nurses involved.

Importantly, the tribunal’s criticism focused on the Trust’s handling of the situation, rather than on the conduct of any individual staff member. The ruling emphasised that the Trust had a responsibility to manage tensions between staff members with different protected characteristics and to provide clear guidance in situations where rights may appear to conflict.

The Nurses’ Position and the Tribunal’s Assessment

The nurses were found to have experienced harassment by the Trust, not by the trans woman. Their distress stemmed from the Trust’s mismanagement of the situation, including a lack of clarity about policies and insufficient support when concerns were raised.

The tribunal did not find that the nurses had acted unlawfully. However, it did record that some of the language used by certain nurses toward the trans woman was hurtful, inappropriate, and transphobic in effect, even if it did not meet the legal threshold for discrimination. Examples included misgendering and comments that portrayed her as a threat despite no evidence of misconduct. These remarks contributed to offence and discomfort, and the tribunal acknowledged the impact of this behaviour.

No Unlawful Conduct by the Trans Woman

The tribunal made clear that no unlawful conduct was attributed to the trans woman, Rose Henderson. She was using the women’s changing room in accordance with Trust policy and her gender identity. The ruling does not indicate any wrongdoing on her part, nor does it suggest that she violated anyone’s rights.

This distinction is significant: while the Trust was found to have failed in its duty of care, the tribunal did not attribute fault to Ms Henderson. The case therefore does not support claims of mutual wrongdoing.

How the Courts Are Applying the Law on Gender‑Critical Beliefs

This case unfolds against the backdrop of recent legal developments concerning gender‑critical beliefs. Following the landmark Forstater v CGD Europe ruling, UK courts have confirmed that gender‑critical beliefs — including the view that sex is immutable — qualify as a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010.

The courts have consistently emphasised two key principles:

• Holding a gender‑critical belief is protected.  
• Manifesting that belief is protected unless it crosses into harassment, discrimination, or unlawful treatment of others.

This approach mirrors how the law treats other protected beliefs, such as religious or political beliefs. The protection applies to the belief itself, not to every possible expression of it.

In practice, this means that employers and public bodies must ensure that people with gender‑critical beliefs are not discriminated against because of those beliefs — while also ensuring that trans people are protected from discrimination and harassment. The law does not elevate one protected characteristic above another; instead, it requires careful balancing.

A Case Study in Balancing Rights

The tribunal’s findings illustrate the difficulty public bodies face when managing situations where protected characteristics intersect. The Trust was criticised not for favouring one group over another, but for failing to manage the situation in a way that respected the rights and dignity of all involved.

The case demonstrates that:

• The NHS must provide clear guidance and support when staff raise concerns involving protected characteristics.  
• Employers must avoid creating environments where staff feel unsupported or exposed to hostility.  
• Trans individuals must not be subjected to hurtful or demeaning language, even when no unlawful discrimination is found.  
• People with gender‑critical beliefs must not be penalised simply for holding those beliefs.  

The tribunal’s ruling reinforces the principle that both gender identity and gender‑critical beliefs are protected, and that institutions must navigate these rights with clarity, fairness, and proportionality.

Conclusion

The tribunal’s decision highlights significant failings by the NHS Trust in managing a sensitive workplace situation. While the nurses’ concerns were mishandled, some of their language toward the trans woman was recognised as transphobic in effect. Crucially, the trans woman herself was found to have committed no unlawful act.

This case underscores the ongoing challenge for public bodies: ensuring that the rights of trans people and the rights of those with gender‑critical beliefs are both upheld, without allowing organisational failings to create unnecessary conflict. As UK courts continue to clarify the law in this area, the emphasis remains on balance, dignity, and lawful treatment for all.