LS v NHS England — Employment Tribunal judgment (Leeds, Case No 1802318/2024)

In brief

First reported Employment Tribunal decision applying For Women Scotland [2025] UKSC 16 and R (Good Law Project) v EHRC [2026] EWHC 279 (Admin) together to an employer's trans-inclusive facilities policy. Indirect sex discrimination upheld on proportionality failure (employer failed to consult women's/faith networks, failed to consider Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 reg 20 obligations, and failed to consider the lesser alternative of directing trans staff to gender-neutral facilities). Harassment by effect upheld on both the facilities policy and the Trans Equality Procedure wording (viewed in context of Dr Montgomery email + Trans Awareness session + handling of concerns = 'environment', not one-off; no hypersensitivity finding). Harassment by purpose dismissed. Combined indirect discrimination claims (sex + religion; sex + disability) dismissed — EqA s.14 not in force; Parliament's intent was limited to direct discrimination. Liability judgment only; remedy hearing outstanding.

Key provisions

• para-183 — Indirect sex discrimination (EqA s.19) UPHELD — PCPs not proportionate: Employer failed to consult women's or faith networks when drafting TEP (para 174.3); failed to consider Workplace Regs reg 20 obligations (para 174.5); failed to consider lesser alternative of directing trans staff to gender-neutral facilities (para 175).
• para-195 — Harassment Allegation 1 (facilities policy) on sex + gender-critical belief UPHELD: Reasonable for policy to have proscribed effect given claimant's PTSD, gender-critical belief, and circumstances. No hypersensitivity finding.
• para-200 — Harassment Allegation 2 (TEP wording) by purpose DISMISSED: Purpose was to promote trans inclusion, not to violate dignity.
• para-203 — Harassment Allegation 2 (TEP wording) by effect UPHELD: TEP viewed in context of email + Trans Awareness session + handling of concerns = 'environment', not one-off.
• para-186 — Indirect discrimination on religious belief + disability DISMISSED — combined claim not cognisable: Complaints amount to combined indirect discrimination, not cognisable under EqA as currently in force.
• para-175 — Proportionality principle — lesser alternative test: With trans women <5 across all offices against workforce of 16,000–19,500 (~63% female, ~7% Muslim), directing trans staff to gender-neutral facilities was an available lesser measure.

When relevant

Cite when: (a) post-FWS trans-inclusive facilities policy is being assessed; (b) employer has not consulted women's / faith / disability networks before issuing policy; (c) employer has not engaged Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 reg 20; (d) employer has not considered gender-neutral facilities as a lesser alternative; (e) Tribunal-level evidence of harassment-by-effect being upheld on a trans-inclusion policy in 'environment' context (email + training + handling of concerns aggregated); (f) reminder that combined indirect discrimination is not cognisable while EqA s.14 not in force.