And speaking of flipping brings me to the tricksy case of Hutchinson and others v County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust (2026) and the increasingly contentious issue of transgender toilet facilities in the workplace. Think you’ll know the correct answer to this one? Strap in and read on!

The claimants were a group of female nurses employed within the Day Surgery Unit at Darlington Memorial Hospital, part of County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust. As part of their roles, they were required to change into and out of their uniforms on site, using staff changing facilities provided by the Trust. Historically, there were separate male and female changing rooms.

The Trust operated a “Transition in the Workplace” policy, under which a transgender female employee, Rose Henderson, was permitted to use the female staff changing room. The claimants objected to sharing the female facilities with their colleague Rose, and raised concerns about privacy, dignity and safeguarding.

In August and September 2023, and again in April 2024, the claimants formally raised complaints with management. They expressed that being required to change in the same space caused them distress and embarrassment, and that the situation compromised their dignity. The Trust responded by referring to its equality and inclusion policies and maintained that its approach was lawful and appropriate.

The claimants contended that their concerns were not properly addressed and that management focused on educating staff about inclusivity rather than meaningfully considering alternative arrangements. They argued that the Trust’s approach created an intimidating, hostile and degrading environment, and that the requirement to share changing facilities placed women at a particular disadvantage.

The Trust maintained that it was complying with its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and that accommodating a transgender employee in accordance with its policy was a lawful and proportionate step. It argued that any discomfort experienced by the claimants did not amount to unlawful harassment and that it had acted appropriately in balancing competing rights.

In 2024, the claimants brought claims for harassment related to sex and gender reassignment, indirect sex discrimination and victimisation to the Employment Tribunal. They also made allegations concerning specific conduct by the transgender colleague.

The ET undertook a detailed examination of the Equality Act framework, including the definitions of harassment and indirect discrimination. It considered whether the Trust’s conduct, including its response to the nurses’ complaints, amounted to unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic that had the purpose or effect of violating their dignity or creating a hostile environment.

In relation to harassment, the ET found that the Trust’s handling of the situation and its requirement that the claimants share female changing facilities with their colleague did amount to harassment related to sex and/or gender reassignment. The ET concluded that the effect on the claimants was significant and that their concerns had not been taken sufficiently seriously.

In relation to indirect sex discrimination, the ET found that the Trust’s policy and its application constituted a provision, criterion or practice which placed women at a particular disadvantage compared to men. While the Trust relied on equality and inclusion objectives, the ET concluded that the approach taken was not shown to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

However, the ET dismissed the claims brought directly against the transgender colleague and rejected the victimisation claims. One claimant’s case was stayed and not finally determined at that stage.

This case serves as an important reminder to employers, particularly in large public sector organisations, that equality policies must be applied with careful consideration of all protected characteristics. While employers are entitled and, in many cases, required to support transgender employees, they must also ensure that policies do not result in unlawful harassment or indirect discrimination. This case has attracted significant public and legal attention due to its examination of how single-sex facility provisions under the Equality Act interact with workplace transgender policies. The ET’s decision underscores the importance of properly balancing competing rights, engaging meaningfully with employee concerns and evidencing proportionality when applying workplace equality policies.