Facts of the Case 

Eight female nurses raised internal concerns in 2023 after a biologically male colleague, Rose Henderson, who identifies as a trans woman, was permitted by the Trust to use the female changing facilities. The nurses reported discomfort and said the arrangement affected their ability to attend work.

The Trust relied on its “Transitioning in the Workplace Policy”, which allowed staff to use facilities aligned with their gender identity. The claimants argued this failed to protect their rights under the Equality Act 2010, noting that requiring women to undress in the presence of a male was not equality but a breach of their dignity.

The Trust made no attempt to discuss alternative arrangements with Rose. Instead, the female nurses were directed to use an alternative changing area that they believed was inadequate and did not meet fire safety standards.
In 2025, the nurses brought Employment Tribunal claims for harassment, indirect sex discrimination and victimisation.

The Tribunal’s Findings 

The Tribunal made several key findings; these are as follows:

Indirect Discrimination – Upheld 

The Tribunal found that allowing a biological male to use the female changing facilities amounted to a PCP (Provision, Criterion or Practice) that placed female staff at a particular disadvantage compared with male staff. Expert evidence confirmed that women were more likely to experience a loss of dignity in these circumstances.

Harassment – Upheld 

The Tribunal found that the female nurses were subjected to unwanted conduct that violated their dignity, particularly when their concerns were dismissed and they were directed to use alternative facilities, creating for the Claimants a hostile, humiliating and degrading environment.

The Policy was Unlawful 

This finding aligns with the approach taken in the For Women Scotland case, where the Scottish Supreme Court confirmed that single sex facilities require a biological interpretation of “sex”.

Harassment Allegations Against Rose – Not Upheld 

The Tribunal found no evidence that Rose had acted with the purpose or effect of violating the Claimant’s dignity. The judgment makes clear that the legal fault lay not with the trans employee, but with the Trust.

The Tribunal’s conclusions expose a clear paradox at the heart of the Trust’s approach. In trying not to discriminate against a trans employee, the Trust ended up discriminating against the women.

Takeaways for Employers 

• Clear, lawful single-sex policies are essential in settings involving employee’s privacy and dignity.
• Balancing rights means assessing the impact on all staff, not prioritising one group.
• Consultation and proper risk assessment prevent avoidable conflicts. 
  

Conclusion 

The Darlington decision makes one point unmistakably clear: employers must balance competing rights with precision, not presumption. Policies intended to be inclusive cannot override the lawful need to protect employee dignity, privacy and safety. Clear, evidence based and legally sound policies are now essential, not optional.

A similar tension has emerged in Northern Ireland. The ongoing case of Sara Morrison v Belfast Film Festival, where the claimant alleges discrimination after expressing amongst other things gender critical views about women’s spaces, raises the same questions about how employers balance gender identity policies with women’s sex based rights. This Judgment is awaited.