And speaking of things some of us, despite our best efforts, just don’t get… brings me to the complex case of Lockwood v Cheshire and Wirral NHS Foundation Trust and Others 2025, the Employment Tribunal considered whether incidents involving the use of incorrect pronouns and references to a previous name amounted to unlawful harassment.

Haech Lockwood was employed by Cheshire and Wirral NHS Foundation Trust as a Cognitive Behavioural Therapist in November 2021. They had been assigned female at birth and originally employed under the name Heather Lockwood before later identifying as non-binary, adopting the name Haech Lockwood and using they/them pronouns.

Following the claimant’s change of name, the Trust took steps to update internal records and inform colleagues of their preferred name and pronouns. Staff were advised that Lockwood identified as non-binary and asked to use their chosen name. Despite this, a number of incidents occurred where Lockwood was referred to using their previous name or female pronouns. These included references within historical employment documents, internal administrative records and communications from colleagues. Lockwood considered that these incidents distressing and raised concerns internally on several occasions.

When issues were raised, the Trust took a number of steps to address them. This included updating internal systems where possible to reflect the new name, communicating the change to colleagues, and reminding staff of the importance of using the preferred name and pronouns. In several instances where incorrect pronouns or the previous name had been used, colleagues apologised and steps were taken to correct the relevant records. The Trust also sought to ensure that future communications reflected Lockwood’s preferred identity and made efforts to rectify issues once they had been flagged.

In May 2022, Lockwood raised formal concerns through the Trust’s grievance procedures, alleging that the repeated use of their previous name and incorrect pronouns amounted to harassment related to gender reassignment. The Trust investigated the complaints and considered the incidents identified by Lockwood. During the grievance process, the Trust reviewed the relevant communications and documentation and spoke to those involved. While the Trust acknowledged that some mistakes had been made, it concluded that the incidents were largely inadvertent and did not amount to harassment. The grievance outcome confirmed that steps would continue to be taken to ensure the preferred name and pronouns were used where possible and that records would be updated where systems allowed.

Lockwood remained dissatisfied with this outcome and considered that these incidents collectively amounted to harassment related to gender reassignment, and they subsequently brought claims in the Employment Tribunal against the Trust and several individual employees. They argued that the use of their former name and the use of incorrect pronouns amounted to unwanted conduct and harassment related to gender reassignment.

In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, the ET concluded that Lockwood’s claim did not meet the statutory definition. While they had changed their name and used gender-neutral pronouns, the ET found that they were not proposing to transition from female to male, nor undergoing a process intended to reassign their sex. Instead, Lockwood identified as non-binary. The ET interpreted the statutory definition as referring to a process of transitioning from one binary sex to another. As Lockwood did not intend to undergo such a process, the ET found that they did not fall within the protected characteristic of gender reassignment under the Equality Act 2010.

The ET also considered whether the conduct complained of would have amounted to harassment if the protected characteristic had applied. While it accepted that Lockwood had experienced genuine upset, it noted that many of the incidents relied upon were administrative errors, historic documentation that had not yet been updated, or inadvertent mistakes made by colleagues. Importantly, the ET noted that when issues were identified, colleagues generally apologised and steps were taken to correct the records. The Trust had also taken steps to inform staff of Lockwood’s preferred name and pronouns.

The ET ultimately dismissed the claims. After taking the above factors into account, the ET concluded that the conduct did not objectively create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The legal threshold for harassment was therefore not met.

This case highlights the continuing legal uncertainty around the scope of the protected characteristic of gender reassignment under the Equality Act 2010. For employers, the case also reinforces that harassment requires conduct which objectively violates an individual’s dignity or creates a hostile or degrading environment. Honest mistakes, particularly where employers respond appropriately and take steps to correct them, are unlikely to meet that threshold. Nevertheless, the case serves as a reminder that employers should approach issues around gender identity with care. Taking reasonable steps to update records, informing colleagues of name or pronoun changes and responding appropriately to concerns can help minimise workplace conflict and reduce the risk of discrimination claims.