Case update

Single-sex spaces, transgender rights and gender critical beliefs: a balancing act required by employers when managing competing protected characteristics

Peggie v Fife Health Board and another

In Peggie v Fife Health Board and another, the Employment Tribunal (ET) partially upheld an employee’s claim against her employer for harassment in relation to the employer’s decision to permit a trans woman to use a female only changing room. The case serves as an important example of how employers must balance the competing interests of employees with different protected characteristics. Click here for our key takeaways for employers.

Background Ms Sandie Peggie (the Claimant) was a nurse in the emergency department at Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy. The hospital was managed by Fife Health Board (the First Respondent).

The department had separate male and female changing rooms. The Claimant learned that Dr B Upton (the Second Respondent), a trans woman, was using the female changing room. The Claimant holds gender critical beliefs, viewing biological sex immutable and distinct from gender identity. She therefore objected to the Second Respondent using the female changing room and raised concerns with her manager in August 2023.

Tensions escalated until 24 December 2023, when the Claimant told the Second Respondent she felt intimidated and considered it was inappropriate for the Second Respondent to use the female changing rooms.

Following this, the Second Respondent made a complaint of bullying and harassment in light of the Claimant’s behaviour. The hospital put the Claimant on special leave while it investigated the complaint and later suspended her due to the allegations.

The investigation was lengthy: the Claimant was suspended on 3 January 2024, returning to work in April 2024, but the disciplinary hearing only concluded in June 2025. During that disciplinary hearing, the panel ultimately found that the evidence against the Claimant was inconclusive and took no action.

The Claimant brought claims against the First Respondent (her employer) and the Second Respondent for:

(i) direct discrimination;

(ii) indirect discrimination;

(iii) harassment (including sexual harassment and harassment by rejection of harassment); and

(iv) victimisation.

Employment Tribunal (ET) decision

The ET upheld part of the harassment claim against the First Respondent, but dismissed all other claims, including all claims against the Second Respondent. We have drawn out below the points of the judgment most relevant to employers.

Interaction with the For Women Scotland judgment

A key issue was how single-sex spaces should be interpreted following the Supreme Court’s decision in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers (2025) which held that, under the Equality Act 2010 (the EqA), an individual’s sex is their biological sex.

The Claimant argued that this meant that trans women should be prohibited from using female changing rooms as trans women are biologically male.

The ET agreed that the For Women Scotland judgment confirms that the Second Respondent’s sex is male under the Equality Act 2010, as this reflects their biological sex.

However, whether it was lawful to deny the Second Respondent access to the female changing room was a separate question. The ET observed that having exclusionary policies such as a blanket ban on the Second Respondent’s access to the female changing room would ignore the Second Respondent’s protected characteristic of gender assignment and therefore risk breaching the EqA.

In conclusion, the ET held that allowing a trans person to use a changing room aligned with their identified gender may be lawful, but it depended on the circumstances.

Harassment

The ET held that the First Respondent’s initial decision to permit the Second Respondent to use the female changing room was not unlawful. However, once the Claimant complained, the decision should have been reviewed.

The ET had to balance the legitimate aim of protecting the Second Respondent’s right to identify with a gender against the Claimant’s right to gender critical beliefs, and then choose the least intrusive measure. As there were other changing spaces available, the ET therefore held that the Claimant had been harassed by the First Respondent’s failure to (at least temporarily) revoke the Second Respondent’s right to use the changing room once the Claimant had complained and the investigation was being undertaken.

The ET held that the First Respondent had further harassed the Claimant by engaging in unwanted conduct relating to her protected gender critical belief by:

  • suggesting to the Claimant that part of the investigation related to her patient care;
  • failing to progress the disciplinary investigation promptly (the investigation took almost a year, which was unexplained and disproportionate);
  • initially instructing the Claimant not to discuss the case with her colleagues, which contributed to a hostile environment for the Claimant during that time period.

Key takeaways

This case shows the complexity employers face where employees have conflicting protected characteristics.

Following For Women Scotland, biological sex is the legal starting point for single-sex spaces, but this does not create an absolute bar on trans individuals using facilities aligned with their gender identity.

The key point is that employers must balance competing protected characteristics and come up with a solution that is proportionate and if, in implementing that solution, rights are infringed, ensure that such infringement goes no further than is necessary to achieving the relevant legitimate aim.

In this case, the relevant legitimate aim was protecting the Second Respondent’s right to identify with a specific gender. This legitimate aim intruded on the Claimant’s gender critical beliefs and therefore it was the employer’s responsibility to find a solution that was as least intrusive as possible on the Claimant’s beliefs.

Staying with the scenario of whether an employer may permit a trans woman to use a female changing room, an employer would need to consider factors such as:

  • the availability of suitable other facilities;
  • whether other staff have complained/expressed concern;
  • the impact this may have on privacy and dignity for all parties.

An employer would have to continuously review any decision taken as circumstances change.

In addition, employers need to ensure that investigations are conducted promptly and employees are given clear guidance as to (1) the allegations of the investigation; and (2) the extent to which they are permitted to discuss the investigation with other colleagues.