Non-binary NHS worker sues Trust after being ‘dead named’ and mis-pronouned, but judges say they don’t have to take offence at everything!

A judge has told a non-binary healthcare worker who tried to sue the NHS Trust because their name was ‘not mentioned’ and ‘mispronounced’ that they should not be so offended.

Employment judge Ann Nicola Benson found that using preferred pronouns to live non-binary does not have the same protected status as gender reassignment.

The case was brought by cognitive behavioral therapist Haech Lockwood against Cheshire and Wirral NHS Foundation Trust and six of its staff.

The panel, led by Judge Benson, said it was relevant that although Lockwood changed their names and preferred pronouns, they did not recommend that their gender be reassigned from female to male.

“Therefore, we found that the plaintiff does not have a protected characteristic such as changing gender,” the decision said.

Among the allegations made by Lockwood, who was born female and was previously known as Heather, was that she was referred to as ‘she’ in a number of IT service desk notifications and as ‘he’ or ‘she’ by colleagues during various interactions.

They were also sent employment contracts containing ‘dead names’, even though they had changed them through title deed and had previously complained about similar issues.

Lockwood, who asked to remain anonymous, has received an apology in every instance where they have raised concerns.

‘All staff involved have shown a genuine intention to do their best to ensure that they take the right steps forward and have offered, and in many cases taken positive steps, to achieve this,’ the decision stated.

Despite this, Lockwood would not accept an apology unless it demonstrated a ‘deep understanding’ of its impact on them.

And instead of an apology prepared on behalf of the IT team, they demanded an apology from the IT team.

“We believe that the apologies offered by each member of the Foundation are sincere and sincere and are intended to ensure that plaintiff’s concerns are appreciated and understood by them,” Judge Benson wrote.

‘It is unfortunate that the plaintiff did not want to accept them as such and took such an inflexible stance.’

Among the allegations made by Lockwood, who was born female and was previously known as Heather, was that she was referred to as ‘she’ in a number of IT service desk notifications and as ‘he’ or ‘she’ by colleagues during various interactions.

One complaint relates to an IT ticket Lockwood received on July 5, 2023, after flagging an issue and using the pronoun ‘he’ to describe them.

Lockwood responded by saying the misgendering had caused them distress, and the IT tech immediately sent an email to apologize, changing the pronoun ‘his’ to ‘their’ and leaving a note for the next person so they could be made aware of Lockwood’s non-binary status.

The court found that Lockwood did not tell the IT technician about their non-binary status when they called, and that the technician took steps to rectify the situation at the time.

‘While the claimant says it is not up to them to tell someone their pronouns, for example, this robs them of the opportunity to influence the environment and educate their colleagues about the environment they are trying to create – particularly where social norms are binary and there are very few non-binary people in the organisation,’ the judge said.

‘As one of the witnesses noted, the plaintiff’s approach is unforgiving.’

Lockwood had claimed that the incidents had violated their dignity and made them feel ‘unsafe’; but judge Benson said there was no evidence the conduct had that effect.

He denied the allegation, writing: ‘It is not enough to offend or offend.’

‘While we do not dispute the offense, distress and disappointment that these issues have caused the claimant, we find that, viewed objectively, the claimant has not demonstrated facts from which we could conclude that the conduct violated the claimant’s dignity.’