Employers could face legal risks not only over the policies they adopt on single-sex facilities but also for how managers and human resources teams handle staff complaints, workplace experts have warned following the Darlington Memorial Hospital tribunal ruling.
The case has sharpened attention on whether organisations are responding to concerns in a sensitive and reasonable way, and whether they are meeting wider duties around workplace facilities and dignity at work.
It comes after an employment tribunal found that County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust violated the dignity of a group of female nurses who raised concerns about a transgender colleague using their changing room. The panel ruled the trust’s approach created a hostile environment for the nurses, although it dismissed other elements of their claim.
Tribunal found hostile environment but dismissed other claims
Eight nurses from Darlington Memorial Hospital, supported by lobby group Christian Concern, brought the claim after objecting to Rose Henderson, a trans woman, using a female-only changing room. The tribunal heard Henderson had used the changing room since 2019, with complaints first raised by nurses in the day surgery unit in August 2023.
The trust said its Transitioning in the Workplace policy, which allowed staff to use facilities aligned with their gender identity, followed guidance at the time. Under the policy, employees who objected were expected to change elsewhere.
In a 134-page judgment, the panel led by employment judge Seamus Sweeney said the policy had an “admirable and noble purpose”, but had the effect of “violating the dignity” of the nurses and “creating for them a hostile, humiliating and degrading environment”. It said the nurses genuinely felt they were not being taken seriously and were being treated as troublemakers by senior management.
The panel found that management and the trust’s HR department did not seriously consider whether the policy might amount to discrimination against female staff. It also concluded the nurses were correct in believing the trust would not address what it described as the core issue, namely the use of the female changing room by a “biological male trans woman”.
While the tribunal dismissed claims about Henderson’s conduct in the changing room as “not well founded”, it found that asking Henderson to change elsewhere would have been “reasonable and feasible”. It noted that around 300 women used the changing room, compared with Henderson as the only trans person.
Instead, a small cubicle adjoining a meeting room was converted into a changing room for those who complained. The tribunal also heard an HR manager told the nurses to “broaden their minds”, which it said reinforced their sense that their concerns were being dismissed and that they were being seen as transphobic or bigoted.
Experts warn employers over complaint-handling and facilities duties
Kate Palmer, chief operating officer at employment law and HR advisory firm Peninsula, told HRreview that recent cases had applied the Supreme Court’s decision in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers in different ways, leaving employers without consistent guidance on how to manage single-sex spaces in practice. She said the tribunal judgment did not provide wider clarity and that updated guidance was still awaited from the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the government.
“However, what is clear,” she said, “is that the employer’s handling of complaints is crucial to managing the situation and failing to handle them in a sensitive and reasonable manner is likely to be looked upon unfavourably by a tribunal should an employee file a claim.”
Palmer added that employers should also consider duties beyond the Equality Act 2010, including health and safety requirements around workplace facilities. “A key consideration for employers is how to balance the protections from discrimination for both women and transgender people. As well as the Equality Act 2010, employers also have responsibilities under the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992.”
Palmer pointed to Regulation 20, which sets requirements for sanitary conveniences and includes the expectation that separate rooms are provided for men and women unless each convenience is in a separate room capable of being secured from inside. She said employers must ensure suitable and private facilities are available for all employees and should seek tailored advice when disputes arise.
Jo Mackie, an employment partner at national law firm Michelmores, told HRreview that the ruling demonstrated how employers could fall foul of the law when they fail to consider women’s rights to single-sex spaces.
“This decision is an example of the difficulty of managing the competing interests of women and trans women. It’s important to realise that they are not competing rights, because women have the right to changing rooms free from men and trans women,” she said.
“This is according to the For Women Scotland judgement of 2025 that found only a biological woman, i.e. biologically female at birth, is a woman, hence excluding trans women from women only spaces is lawful.”
Mackie said many women felt strongly about not sharing changing rooms with trans women and said the tribunal’s finding on dignity reflected the current legal position.
“Many women, including the nurses involved here, feel strongly that they do not wish to share changing rooms with trans women. The NHS Trust that forced them to do so was found to have violated their dignity. This finding is in accordance with the current law and the legal definition of a woman. We will see more test cases as the year goes on but I suspect the law will hold fast on the meaning of ‘woman’.”
Trust reviewing judgment
The tribunal said the nurses were entitled to a remedy and encouraged all parties to agree one without the need for further hearings. The trust’s policy was withdrawn following the Supreme Court ruling on the legal definition of a woman, the panel said.
A spokesperson for County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust said it was taking time to review the judgment and would comment further once it had the opportunity to consider it in full.
