A non-binary cognitive therapist has been told by a judge their claims of discrimination for being “deadnamed” were not a sufficient offence to sue Cheshire and Wirral NHS Foundation Trust.
Haech Lockwood, who identifies as non-binary, failed in their employment tribunal after they alleged repeated use of incorrect pronouns and their former name.
The worker, who was born female and formerly went by the name Heather, brought complaints against six staff members alongside the Trust itself.
A tribunal heard evidence that IT service desk tickets had referred to Haech Lockwood using “her” rather than their preferred pronoun “their”.
After they complained about feeling distressed, the technician promptly apologised, corrected the pronoun to “their”, and added a note alerting future staff to Lockwood’s non-binary status.
Employment contracts also contained their previous name, even though they had formally changed it through a deed poll.
The tribunal heard Cheshire and Wirral Trust issued apologies whenever concerns about misgendering incidents.
“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,” employment judge Ann Nicola Benson said.
A non-binary has been told by a judge that their claims of discrimination for “deadnaming” were not a sufficient offence to sue the NHS
|
GETTY
However, Lockwood rejected these responses unless they demonstrated what they termed a “deep understanding” of the personal impact.
They also insisted on receiving a direct apology from the IT department rather than accepting one issued on the team’s behalf.
Judge Benson concluded: “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.”
She added: “It is unfortunate that the claimant was unwilling to accept them as such and take such an inflexible stance.”
‘It is unfortunate that the claimant was unwilling to accept them as such and take such an inflexible stance,” the judge said
|
GETTY
“The claimant approach has, as indicated by one of the witnesses, been unforgiving,” she stated.
Dismissing the Lockwood’s claim, Judge Benson determined they lacked the protected characteristic of gender reassignment under equality laws.
“We therefore find that the claimant does not have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment,” the judgment stated.
Judge Benson declared: “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,” she concluded.
It comes as nurses from County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust demanded an apology “traumatic ordeal” with a trans colleague earlier this month.
The Darlington Nurses told GB News they were made to “accept” a biological male in their changing rooms due to the “inclusivity” of the NHS.
Complaints were made by the NHS nurses after Rose Henderson, a biological male who identifies as a woman, was allowed to use the same changing room as the biologically female staff.