A Muslim NHS worker could receive up to £25,000 in compensation after an employment tribunal ruled that NHS England’s policy allowing transgender women to use single-sex toilets at her workplace in Leeds amounted to unlawful discrimination.
Lawyers representing the woman, whose identity has been anonymised by the tribunal, said the payout reflects the discrimination and harassment she suffered because of her belief that sex is biologically defined. The employee, who is female, Muslim and has post-traumatic stress disorder, brought claims of indirect discrimination against her employer after transgender colleagues were permitted to use the same showers and toilets.
The complaint
The case centred on NHS England’s “Trans Equality Policy” and “Trans Equality Procedure”, introduced in October 2017. Under these rules, trans staff could use single-sex facilities corresponding to their gender identity once they had reached “full-time presentation … in the new gender role”. The claimant argued the policy indirectly discriminated against women generally, Muslim women specifically, and women with PTSD.
Her formal complaint followed an email she received in October 2022 announcing a colleague’s transition, and a “trans awareness session” she was asked to attend the following month. She said the policy created a hostile environment and that her religious and philosophical views – that sex is immutable – were not accommodated.
Tribunal’s reasoning
Leeds Employment Tribunal upheld the woman’s claims, ruling that NHS England had failed to demonstrate its trans policy was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The tribunal noted that there is no express legal right for a transgender person to use single-sex facilities under the Equality Act 2010 or the Workplace (Health, Safety & Welfare) Regulations 1992.
NHS England had sought external advice from organisations including Stonewall, Unison and other trade unions. However, the tribunal rejected the argument that relying on such guidance could justify an incorrect interpretation of the law. “Reliance on contemporaneous guidance or good practice advice cannot justify an incorrect interpretation of the law,” it stated. “Employers must seek their own legal advice and ensure that they are applying the law correctly.”
During the hearing, NHS England witnesses accepted that the policy created practical difficulties for female staff and that the claimant and other women – including those with PTSD – were disadvantaged. The tribunal suggested alternative measures that would have had a lesser impact, such as providing gender-neutral toilets or installing a lock to make a private shower available.
The ruling also reinforced the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in April 2025 in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, which held that the terms “sex”, “man” and “woman” in the Equality Act refer to biological sex at birth. The tribunal made clear that this interpretation “is not limited to events that take place after the Supreme Court’s decision”. The judgment does not remove protection from transgender people, who remain protected under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
Wider implications
The case adds to a growing body of employment tribunal decisions on single-sex facilities. In January 2026, seven female nurses at Darlington Memorial Hospital won a harassment and indirect sex discrimination claim after being required to share changing rooms with a transgender colleague. The tribunal found the trust’s policy created a “hostile, intimidating, humiliating and degrading environment”. That outcome contrasts with the case of Kelly v Leonardo UK Ltd, where a challenge to a trans-inclusive toilet policy was dismissed.
In Scotland, a tribunal partially upheld a harassment claim by nurse Sandie Peggie against NHS Fife after she objected to a transgender doctor using the female changing room. The Scottish Feminist Network said: “Another Employment Tribunal win for a woman expecting access to single-sex facilities. In England. It’s noticeable that the decisions are in the opposite direction for women in Scotland. Hopefully, the Scottish appeals can point to these judgments and expect consistency.”
The Women’s Rights Network described the Leeds ruling as “great news for women who work in the NHS” and called for NHS England and devolved NHS bodies to “ensure the law is obeyed by ALL hospitals and NHS organisations”.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has been working on updated guidance for single-sex spaces following the Supreme Court’s judgment. Kishwer Falkner, the EHRC chair, called the ruling a “victory for common sense” while stressing that trans people’s rights must be respected. Bridget Phillipson, Minister for Women and Equalities, told MPs in April that the Government “has always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex” and was taking “urgent action” to update the guidance “as soon as practicable after the election period”. In February 2026, she separately indicated that the EHRC Code of Practice applies to services and associations, not directly to workplace regulations, leaving such matters to employers like the NHS.
Solicitors at the firm Didlaw, which represented the complainant, said the Leeds ruling should pressure ministers to publish the EHRC guidance, which they described as having been “inexplicably and unjustifiably delayed”. Current NHS guidance on “Delivering Same-Sex Accommodation” has historically stated that trans patients should be accommodated in line with their stated gender identity, but the EHRC has warned the NHS to change its guidance. Following the Supreme Court ruling, NHS bosses are reviewing and overhauling guidelines for single-sex spaces in hospitals and GP surgeries. Meanwhile, the Government announced in the King’s Speech that NHS England is set to be abolished.