Being non-binary does not give transgender protections under Equality Act to NHS Therapist
Published Jan 21, 2026
A non-binary NHS therapist, who brought a harassment claim against their employer, has lost their tribunal case when it was ruled that they did not have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
The employee, Haech Lockwood, had made a claim of harassment relating to gender reassignment which involved incidents where they had been “mis-pronounced” and “deadnamed.” Deadnamed is the act of calling a transgender person or non-binary person by the name that they no longer use because it matched the gender they were said to have at birth.
Lockwood was born female and given the name Heather. They identify as non-binary and use the pronouns they/them. When they first applied for their job, they informed the NHS that they were non-binary. After starting in the role an email was sent to colleagues in their team saying they wished to be known as Haech Lockwood. The email said they identified as trans/gender fluid, their pronouns were they/them and they did not identify as male or female.
The email also said that use of their deadname caused gender dysmorphia.
The incidents of alleged harassment included delays in updating the trust’s IT systems once Lockwood had changed their first name by deed pool. Lockwood also received a letter from occupational health addressed to “Other Heather Lockwood.” They were referred to as “her” by IT support, “she” at a Covid clinic and by their deadname in patient communications.
The tribunal considered Section 7 of the Equality Act and previous tribunal cases in which gender reassignment is intended to cover a “spectrum of moving away from birth sex” (i.e. moving from point A to Z where A and Z are biological sex).
The relevant premises being:
someone describing themselves as non-binary is not a point A or Z
someone describing themselves as gender fluid is at different places between point A and Z
someone transitioning is moving from point A but not necessarily ending at point Z
Tribunal Findings
The tribunal said, “the claimant is non-binary. Their sex at birth was female. They have no intention to transition to the male sex. Then have changed their name by deed poll to Haech and live under that name. They have the preferred pronouns of they/them. The claimant intends taking no other steps to change their sex, medical or otherwise.”
The judgement cited the Supreme Court’s recent finding (in the For Women Scotland case) that “sex” within the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex and therefore sex is a binary concept i.e. male and female.
The tribunal asked “what journey” did Section 7 of the Equality Act require the employee to be on for them to have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment? Referring to the Supreme Court ruling that sex is biological and binary then the “journey” can only be from one sex to another.
Section 7 protects the process of reassignment and the protections for “sex” and “gender reassignment” are separate for the purposes of discrimination with each having separate protections.
The actions taken by the employee were steps to move away from the female sex to a different gender identity (i.e. non-binary). These were not steps to reassign their sex from female to male.
Consequently, the tribunal found that Lockwood “does not have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.”
The tribunal did acknowledge Lockwood was offended and upset by the incidents but could not conclude that these had violated their dignity.
Whilst this finding does not set a precedent in case law unless the decision is upheld at appeal it is a significant guide for how gender identity should be interpreted under the Equality Act.
Sourced by: Gavin Parrott