Case 2501192/2024 · Employment Tribunal
1. Ms B Hutchinson 2. Ms K Danson 3. Joanne Bradbury 4. Ms M A Grundy 5. Ms L Lockley 6. Ms C Hoy 7. Ms T A Hooper 8. Ms J Peveller v County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 2501192/2024
- Decision date
- 3 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Denise
- Panel members
- Denise Newey, Malcolm Brain
Parties
2 namedClaimant
1. Ms B Hutchinson 2. Ms K Danson 3. Joanne Bradbury 4. Ms M A Grundy 5. Ms L Lockley 6. Ms C Hoy 7. Ms T A Hooper 8. Ms J Peveller
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard combined claims from eight claimants (seven determined; one stayed) against County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust concerning the operation of a uniform policy and part of the Trust's Transition in the Workplace policy, which permitted a transgender colleague (referred to as Rose Henderson, a biological male who identifies as female and has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment) to use the female changing room. The claimants brought claims of harassment related to sex and/or gender reassignment (s.26 Equality Act 2010), indirect sex discrimination (s.19) and victimisation (s.27).
The Tribunal found that, by requiring the claimants to share the changing room with a biological male trans woman, the Respondent engaged in unwanted conduct related to sex and gender reassignment which had the effect of violating the claimants' dignity and creating a hostile, humiliating and degrading environment. It further found that, by not taking seriously and declining to address the claimants' concerns raised in August and September 2023 and on 4 April 2024 regarding that part of the policy, the Respondent engaged in unwanted conduct which had the effect of creating a hostile and intimidating environment. The complaints of indirect sex discrimination were also well founded and succeeded.
The Tribunal dismissed the harassment complaints insofar as they related to Rose Henderson's conduct inside and outside the changing room (pleaded at paragraph 23(b) and (e) of the Amended Particulars), and the harassment complaints relating to other aspects of the Respondent's conduct pleaded at paragraph 23(d), (f), (h), (i), (j) and (k). The victimisation complaints were not well founded and were dismissed. This is a reserved judgment on liability only; remedy was not determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Harassment related to sex and/or gender reassignment well founded in part: (i) requiring claimants to share a changing room with a biological male trans woman (paragraph 23(a) of Amended Particulars); and (ii) not taking seriously and declining to address the claimants' concerns of August/September 2023 and 4 April 2024 regarding the Transition in the Workplace Policy. This is a reserved judgment on liability only; remedy not yet determined. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Harassment complaints relating to the use of the female changing room by, and the conduct of, Rose Henderson while so using the changing room (paragraph 23(b)), and Rose Henderson's conduct outside the changing room (paragraph 23(e)), and Respondent conduct pleaded at paragraph 23(d), (f), (h), (i), (j) and (k), were not well founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Gender reassignment | — |
| Sex discrimination | Complaints of indirect sex discrimination (s.19 Equality Act 2010) were well founded and succeeded. Liability judgment only. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Complaints of victimisation under s.27 Equality Act 2010 were not well founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim of the eighth named claimant, Joanne Bradbury, is currently stayed; no determination was made on her claim in this judgment. |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- section 19 Equality Act 2010
- section 109(1) Equality Act 2010
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.