An employment judge has ruled that a non-binary health worker should not have been so offended after they attempted to sue their NHS Trust for being ‘deadnamed’ and ‘mis-pronouned’ by colleagues.
The Tribunal's Landmark Ruling
Employment Judge Ann Nicola Benson found that using preferred pronouns to live as non-binary does not carry the same protected legal status as reassigning sex. The case was brought against Cheshire and Wirral NHS Foundation Trust and six of its staff members by Haech Lockwood, a cognitive behavioural therapist who was born female and was previously known as Heather.
The tribunal panel, led by Judge Benson, stated it was significant that while Lockwood had changed their name and preferred pronouns, they were not proposing to medically reassign their sex from female to male. ‘We therefore find that the claimant does not have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment,’ the judgement concluded.
Details of the Grievances
Among the specific complaints, Lockwood stated they were referred to as ‘her’ on a series of IT service desk tickets and as ‘she’ or ‘her’ by colleagues during several workplace interactions. They were also sent employment contracts bearing their ‘deadname’—the name they were given at birth—despite having legally changed it by deed poll and having raised previous grievances about similar issues.
The tribunal heard that on each occasion Lockwood raised a concern, they received an apology. ‘All staff involved demonstrated a real intention to do their best to ensure they get it right going forward and propose and, in most cases, put in place positive steps to achieve this,’ the judgement noted.
An 'Unforgiving' Stance on Apologies
However, the tribunal found that Lockwood adopted an inflexible position, refusing to accept apologies unless they demonstrated a ‘deep understanding’ of the impact on them. On one specific occasion, they demanded a direct apology from the IT team itself, rather than the apology issued on its behalf.
‘We consider that the apologies given by every member of the Trust were genuine and heartfelt, and such as to seek to ensure the claimant’s concerns were appreciated and understood by them,’ Judge Benson wrote. ‘It is unfortunate that the claimant was unwilling to accept them as such and take such an inflexible stance.’
The judgement also highlighted one particular incident on July 5, 2023, where an IT ticket used the pronoun ‘her’. Lockwood responded that this misgendering caused distress, prompting the IT technician to immediately apologise, change the pronoun to ‘their’, and leave a note for colleagues to be aware of Lockwood's non-binary status.
The panel observed that Lockwood had not informed the technician of their non-binary status during the initial call. ‘Although the claimant says that it was not up to them to, for example, tell someone their pronouns, that takes away their opportunity to influence the environment and educate colleagues,’ the judge said, adding that Lockwood's approach had been described by a witness as ‘unforgiving’.
While Lockwood claimed the incidents violated their dignity and made them feel ‘unsafe’, Judge Benson stated there was no objective evidence to support this. Dismissing the claim, she concluded: ‘Offending against dignity or hurting is not enough. Although we do not dispute the offence, distress and frustrations that these issues have had upon the claimant, we find that viewed objectively the claimant has not shown facts from which we could conclude that the conduct violated the claimant’s dignity.’
