Balancing rights at work

An ET case involving gender and changing rooms at work

In January 2026, an employment tribunal (ET) considered a sensitive case about workplace changing facilities, privacy and equality law. The judgment provides important lessons for schools and other employers about balancing dignity, inclusion and legal responsibilities.

Background to the case

The case of Bethany Hutchison & Others v County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust involved eight female nurses working in the Day Surgery Unit at Darlington Memorial Hospital. As part of their roles, the nurses were required to change into uniform at work using a female-only changing room.

The trust operated a ‘Transition in the workplace’ policy which allowed staff to use single-sex facilities in line with their gender identity. Under this policy, a transgender woman (biologically male) colleague was permitted to use the women’s changing room.

The claimants raised concerns about privacy, dignity and personal safety, stating that they felt distressed and uncomfortable being required to undress in the presence of someone of the opposite biological sex. They said that when they raised these concerns during 2023 and 2024, they were not properly addressed and that no meaningful alternative changing arrangements were put in place.

The nurses brought claims under the Equality Act 2010, alleging harassment related to sex, indirect sex discrimination and failures by their employer to protect their dignity at work.

Key issues considered

The ET assessed:

• Harassment related to sex and/or gender reassignment.
• Indirect sex discrimination.
• Victimisation.
• Whether the trust’s response to complaints in 2023 and 2024 constituted unwanted conduct creating a hostile working environment.

ET findings

The ET held that the trust did engage in harassment related to sex in the two main ways:

• Requiring the claimants to share a changing room with a biological male trans woman amounted to unwanted conduct, which violated their dignity.
• Failing to take the claimants’ concerns seriously in August and September 2023 and in April 2024, thereby creating an intimidating and hostile environment.

The ET emphasised that the existence and enforcement of the policy itself was ‘conduct’ for the purposes of the Equality Act, particularly where it had foreseeable and serious consequences for female staff. The ET accepted that women are disproportionately affected by policies requiring them to undress in front of members of the opposite biological sex, due to issues of privacy, vulnerability and social expectations.

The trust was also found to have committed indirect sex discrimination, because the policy placed women at a particular disadvantage by requiring them to share intimate spaces with a biological male, without providing suitable alternatives. It was not shown to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

However, the ET did not uphold all claims. Allegations relating to the personal behaviour of the transgender colleague and claims of victimisation were dismissed, making clear that the judgment focused on the employer’s actions and policies, not individual conduct.

Implications for schools and other employers

This case does not rule out inclusive policies or deny protections for transgender staff. However, it highlights that employers must carefully balance competing rights under the Equality Act. Schools, like all employers, have duties to protect staff and pupils from harassment, while also respecting protected characteristics such as sex and gender reassignment.

The case demonstrates that single-sex spaces can be lawfully protected where privacy and dignity are at stake, and that employers must consider whether alternative arrangements, such as individual or gender-neutral facilities, are reasonably available.
In summary, the ET found that both the trust’s policy and its response to concerns, amounted to unlawful harassment and indirect discrimination.

Key takeaways for schools

Schools should be aware that:

• Workplace policies can amount to unlawful conduct if they undermine dignity or create a hostile environment.
• Female staff and pupils have legally protected rights to privacy in single-sex spaces.
• Concerns raised by staff must be taken seriously and addressed sensitively.
• Inclusion policies must be balanced, lawful, and practical in their real-world impact.

The case demonstrates that equality law requires careful consideration, rather than a standard solution, and that ensuring dignity remains central to good leadership in schools.

Need support with your HR?

Our support means you can focus on education, while we take care of your organisation’s HR needs.

Whether you need help with appraisals, advice on managing a disciplinary or grievance, or guidance on statutory obligations, our education HR specialists can support your school with a flexible and cost-effective service. Get in touch about how we can help you.

The equality section of our CEFMi website contains model policies and information, including a ‘Dignity at work’ policy. Get a free trial of CEFMi – a comprehensive resource for school managers containing over 7,000 pages of text, including over 170 policies written specifically for schools.