In August 2023, three pool organisations – Ultimate Pool Group (UPG), World Eight Ball Federation (WEBF) and England Blackball Pool Federation (EBPF) – announced that their women’s events would be for those female at birth. This was a reversal of past self-ID policy. They did this because a trans-identifying male player, Harriet Haynes, was dominating women’s events. 

In response, Haynes threatened all three with legal action. UPG and WEBF backed down in October 2023, reverting to their previous policy that anyone could self-identify into the women’s events. EBPF did not. 

Haynes brought a claim for discrimination against EBPF for having refused to amend its rules to let him into its women’s events. The claim names the EBPF chair, Paul Thomson, and the secretary, Anna Goodwin.

In a separate case, UPG and WEBF were sued for discrimination by a group of almost 30 women, led by six named players, for their policy reversals. That case was settled in favour of the women in May 2025.

Outcome

The hearing was held from 7th to 11th April 2025. Both sides called expert witnesses who submitted reports. Haynes was represented by a trans-identifying male barrister and called as an expert witness a trans-identifying male academic and footballer, Dr Blair Hamilton. One of the expert witnesses for the defence was Dr Emma Hilton, a developmental biologist and a trustee of Sex Matters.

While the case was being heard, the Supreme Court announced that the judgment in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers would be delivered the following week. The judge then suggested, and both parties agreed, that they would submit written arguments once the Supreme Court had delivered its judgment. This was handed down on 16th April and clarified that “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex.

In August 2025 the court dismissed the claim, ruling that Haynes’ exclusion from the women’s competition was on the basis of biological sex, not gender reassignment.

The judgment confirms that sports organisers can lawfully exclude trans-identifying males from women’s competitions based on biological sex, and that the UK Supreme Court’s ruling in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers was determinative. A trans-identifying male, regardless of whether he holds a gender-recognition certificate (GRC), is considered biologically male for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010.

The court rejected arguments based on the Human Rights Act, and stated that any future application for permission to appeal would most likely be refused, as there was no real prospect of success.

Appeal

The claimant Harriet Haynes was initially denied permission to appeal by the trial judge, HHJ Parker, but granted permission by Mr Justice Ritchie at the High Court in March 2026. The case will now be heard at the High Court, date to be determined.

Our case briefings are introductions to cases that concern the conflict between sex-based rights and policies and practices based on gender identity. Dr Emma Hilton (a trustee of Sex Matters) was acting in her personal capacity. This information was compiled from public sources, last updated 19th March 2026. 

The post Harriet Haynes v Paul Thomson and Anna Goodwin (English Blackball Pool Federation chair and secretary) appeared first on Sex Matters.

This was a high-profile Employment Tribunal case in which a group of eight nurses working at Darlington Memorial Hospital, widely known as the Darlington nurses, successfully sued their employer, County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, for sexual harassment and sex discrimination.

The nurses argued that the trust allowing their male colleague Rose Henderson, who identified as a woman, to use the female changing room alongside them and other women was a form of harassment, as it created a hostile environment for the women. The tribunal agreed: 

“By requiring the Claimants to share a changing room with a biological male trans woman … the Respondent engaged in unwanted conduct related to sex and gender reassignment which had the effect of violating the dignity of the Claimants and creating for the Claimants a hostile, humiliating and degrading environment.” [paragraph 1.1]

The tribunal also ruled that letting a man access the female changing room amounted to sex discrimination, and was a failure to provide single-sex changing facilities as the trust was legally required to do. 

Employment Tribunal hearing

A full hearing took place at Newcastle Employment Tribunal from 20th October to 11th November 2025. The cases for seven out of the eight claimants were heard, with the case for Joanne Bradbury being stayed (put on hold) until further notice. The other seven claimants all gave evidence, as did Henderson.

The NHS trust’s request in January 2025 for an order to anonymise the identity of “Rose” and restrict reporting had been rejected at a preliminary hearing on the grounds that the evidence provided was “unsupported by anything concrete” and that “derogations from open justice require exceptional circumstances”. At the full hearing, it was agreed that the tribunal “would refer to Rose by first name and would use the neutral pronoun of ‘they’”.

The tribunal heard that under the trust’s uniform policy, staff who wore uniforms had to change on the hospital premises for health and safety reasons. They therefore had no option but to use changing facilities. The claimants used the female changing room on the floor where they worked. 

Henderson, described by the tribunal as “a biological male who identifies as female and has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment” worked on the same floor. Henderson was allowed to change in the female changing room – used by around 300 nurses – under the trust’s Transitioning in the Workplace policy, which states that an employee is regarded as transgender “the moment a person informs us they are Trans or intends to transition”, and are then “legally allowed to use any toilet facility they prefer and the choice should be theirs”.

The Darlington nurses first brought up the issue of Henderson using the female changing room in August 2023. They said having to undress in front of a man was degrading, and they had concerns about cultural sensitivities and previous experiences of sexual abuse among staff. They expressed fears of potential abuse or exploitation of inclusivity policies by bad actors. 

The nurses gave evidence during the hearing that they had felt especially uncomfortable because Henderson had not undergone any physical or hormonal transition, nor expressed an intention to do so, and had an obviously male appearance. Henderson had also made it known that he was trying to conceive a baby with his partner, so it was clear that he was a sexually active man with full male genitalia. Several of the nurses claimed that Henderson had attempted to intimidate them both inside and outside the changing room, on occasion walking around the changing room wearing only boxer shorts. 

The trust’s HR department, along with senior staff, dismissed the nurses’ concerns, stating that they should “broaden their mindset” and “be educated”. When the nurses continued to raise their concerns, the trust told them that if they felt uncomfortable changing with Henderson, they could change in a different space: a former office room that was neither large enough nor compliant with fire safety regulations. There was no suggestion that Henderson should change somewhere else. 

The nurses then sought assistance from the Christian Legal Centre and went to the press. In October 2024 they formed the Darlington Nurses Union, founded on gender-critical principles that a person’s biological sex is unchangeable and sometimes more relevant than their gender identity. 

After a great deal of media attention, and following the April 2025 Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland, alternative changing facilities were found for Henderson in July 2025. The claimants, and other women who had chosen to use the alternative facilities, returned to using the female-only changing room, and the trust confirmed that this could no longer be used by Henderson or any other trans-identifying man. 

Jo Phoenix, a professor of criminology at the University of Reading (and a member of Sex Matters’ advisory group) gave expert evidence on whether women are more likely than men to suffer fear, distress and humiliation if made to undress in front of a person of the opposite sex. 

Judgment was handed down on 16th January 2026 and the nurses were successful in their main claims of harassment and indirect sex discrimination against the trust. 

Tribunal findings

• The trust incorrectly allowed staff to access the single-sex changing room of their choice based on that staff member’s own self-declared “gender identity”. 
• The Transitioning in the Workplace policy had been drafted without properly assessing the impact on women in particular, despite the fact that around 80% of the trust’s workforce is female. 
• Under the Equality Act 2010, services or facilities that are described as being single sex are for people of that biological sex only, and not to be used by anyone of the opposite sex who is trans-identifying. The tribunal was clear that this had been the law since the Equality Act came into effect, even before it was confirmed in April 2025 by the Supreme Court in the case of For Women Scotland. 
• The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 state that suitable changing facilities must be provided for staff who must wear special clothing for work, and that the workplace must provide “separate facilities for, or separate use of facilities by, men and women”. The tribunal said that these definitions of “men” and “women” meant biological sex. 
• The hospital’s HR department never spoke directly to the nurses who had complained and made no attempt to understand why they felt uncomfortable with Henderson using the female changing room. 
• Trust staff were wrong to try to “educate” the nurses into accepting Henderson, or any other trans-identifying man, in the female changing room. 
• The hospital was wrong to make the nurses change elsewhere, in a room that was not a proper changing room and did not meet fire-safety standards, instead of making Henderson change in a different location. 
• The tribunal accepted Professor Phoenix’s evidence:

“We accept that, as a general rule, considerably more women than men feel or would likely feel personal insecurity, distress and fear if required to change clothes in a communal changing room shared with a member of the opposite sex.” [paragraph 266]

• Women are more likely than men to have periods of time when they are particularly sensitive about their bodies and require more privacy, such as menstruation, pregnancy and menopause. 
• The tribunal was “satisfied” that one of the hospital theatre managers “had deduced that women from a ‘non-western country/culture’ (as ‘international nurses’ were described to us) would have even greater concerns about changing in the same space as a biological male”.
• Women are more likely than men to have experienced sex-based harassment and sex-based violence. 

“Depending on the circumstances, a woman might experience fear and distrust in the presence of a man even though, objectively, as a matter of fact, the man is an entirely innocent actor. We take an example that we can all recognise, of a woman walking alone on a street at night, whereupon she notices an approaching male. She crosses the road to avoid the man, holding her keys in her hands in the event she needs to defend herself or she phones someone or pretends to do so. The approaching male is a perfectly decent and innocent person with no intention to harm anyone and is oblivious to the woman on the street. He would feel offended at the thought that someone might regard him as potentially harmful. But it is not the individual’s character that dictates the reaction in the woman. It is not the man himself but the fact that he is a man. The difficulty for the woman in this example is that she is unable to police the character or the intent or motivations of the approaching male.” [paragraph 270]

The judgment

The tribunal ruled that the trust had subjected the nurses to harassment and indirect sex discrimination and so the nurses won their claim on these grounds because: 

• the trust allowing Henderson to change in the female changing room was harassment against the nurses
• the trust further subjected the nurses to harassment by not taking their complaints seriously and not addressing them
• the trust’s policy of allowing trans-identifying people to use the changing room of the opposite biological sex adversely affected more women than men, and so was found to be indirect sex discrimination. 

The tribunal did not uphold the nurses’ claims that Henderson’s conduct on certain occasions, both inside and outside the changing room, amounted to harassment, noting that: 

• the tribunal had deliberately made a distinction between the trust wrongly allowing Henderson to use the changing room and Henderson actually using it: since the trust had expressly allowed Henderson to use the changing room, doing so did not amount to harassment by Henderson as an individual.

The tribunal accepted that Henderson’s conduct in the changing room on a specific occasion was found by one of the complainants to be “distressing”, but said that this had not been Henderson’s intention.

“Rose Henderson did not see themselves as a threat to any colleague and was simply getting changed when someone else arrived in the changing room, went to their locker yet did not start to get changed. It may be that Rose lacked insight generally into the effect of their presence in that environment on some colleagues. This lack of insight is partly explained, we infer, from Rose’s inherent belief that the right place for Rose to change was the female changing room; from the fact that Rose had been using the changing room for some time without complaint – or without being aware of any complaints –and from the fact that Rose was doing no more than exercising the choice provided under the TIW policy.” [paragraph 216]

The tribunal did not uphold the nurses’ claim of victimisation, finding that the nurses were not victimised by the tribunal for having gone to the press. 

Next steps

The tribunal ruled that the seven claimants whose cases were heard (the eighth claimant’s case being put on hold) were entitled to remedy, and recommended that the parties try and resolve this between themselves. The remedy awarded to each claimant is likely to involve financial compensation.

Our case briefings are introductions to cases that concern the conflict between sex-based rights and policies and practices based on gender identity. This information was compiled from public sources, last updated 16th January 2026. 

The post Bethany Hutchison and others v County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust appeared first on Sex Matters.

Maria Kelly is an engineer employed by Leonardo UK, a defence and security company, in Edinburgh. In September 2022 she became aware of three trans-identifying men in her workplace. Concerned about the loss of female-only facilities, in 2023 she asked her line manager about the company’s policy. He said he did not know and neither did his line manager. After more than a year of following up, she was told by HR:

“We consider it is appropriate, and an inclusive approach, that anyone who is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purposes of reassigning their gender should use the toilets which is aligned to the gender to which they identify.”

They said that this was an obligation under Equality Act 2010, and was based on Government Equalities Office guidance for the recruitment and retention of transgender staff 2015 and ACAS guidance on gender reassignment discrimination from 2017.

Kelly challenged the policy and eventually brought a grievance and appeal, and was told (emphasis added):

“Advice from our external legal counsel makes it very clear that any attempt by the company to refuse individuals access to use the toilets of their affirmed gender would be unlawful.”

She then brought a claim for sex discrimination and harassment in relation to the policy. It was heard in Edinburgh in October 2025 – after the Supreme Court had clarified that the protected characteristic of sex in the Equality Act means biological sex. 

Findings by the tribunal

The judgment did not uphold Kelly’s claims, dismissing her arguments that women are less favourably treated by the policy, or that they suffer unjustifiably, or that she herself had experienced a hostile, humiliating, or degrading environment as a woman.

It found that she had not suffered humiliating or degrading treatment by being forced to share the women’s toilets with three men, that she did not complain hard or quickly enough, that not enough women complained and that women had nothing to worry about as Leonardo staff were security-vetted. 

The judge concluded that “a toilet access policy of permitting access based upon asserted gender rather than sex was an appropriate means to achieve the aim of an inclusive workplace environment”.

She rejected the Supreme Court’s reasoning that “man” and “woman” must refer to coherent groups defined by sex, saying that applying an analogous approach to workplace toilets – that is, seeking to create two coherent groups – would result not in biological categories, but in groups she referred to as “putative” men and women: people who pass as men and women, respectively:

“The SC in FWS found that a gender certified interpretation creates heterogenous groupings (women would mean biological women (without a GRC) and also biological men (with a GRC)) rendering the protected characteristic of sex incoherent. In the context of the 1992 Regs, a biological interpretation also creates heterogenous groupings in practice such that women would mean putative women (biological women and biological men perceived to be female) rendering the distinction unworkable.” [paragraph 229]

The judgment dismissed Kelly’s claim that in her experience “trans women” are “readily discernible as men”, saying she did so because Kelly had said she understood that these men believe they have a gender identity:

“The claimant is aware that trans women believe their gender identity is at variance to their sex and whereas non-trans men (including transvestites) do not.”“The claimant is aware that trans women often undergo a process for the purpose of reassigning their gender identity (or their belief in it) which may entail medical advice, hormonal treatment, and/or endeavouring to live permanently as a female including  modifying their  appearance  and presentation. The claimant is aware that a transvestite i.e. crossdresser does not undergo such a process and is merely engaged in a temporary modification of their appearance.”“It is not therefore accepted that the claimant believes that trans women are indistinguishable from men in practice.” [paragraphs 285–287]

What happens next? 

The surprising judgment, which is only at first instance, is not a finding that this policy could never result in sex discrimination or harassment but only that, based on the specific facts and circumstances of this case, the tribunal did not believe that Kelly’s experience supports the claims.This judgment is likely to be appealed, and other employers should remain wary of following Leonardo’s lead and adopting policies that allow men to use women’s facilities. Employers must be confident that their own policies are lawful.

Our case briefings are introductions to cases that concern the conflict between sex-based rights and policies and practices based on gender identity. Naomi Cunningham (then chair of Sex Matters) was acting as counsel in her personal capacity. This information was compiled from public sources, last updated 3rd December 2025.

The post Maria Kelly v Leonardo UK appeared first on Sex Matters.

Sara Morrison worked for the Belfast Film Festival (BFF), an arts organisation which is a registered charity in Northern Ireland, as an inclusion and audience development co-ordinator. She holds gender-critical beliefs, including that people cannot change sex. 

In April 2023 Morrison attended and spoke in a personal capacity at a women’s rights rally in Belfast, “Let Women Speak”. Although she did not identify herself by name or name her employer during her speech, footage of the event circulated online and the BFF was tagged in social-media posts.

Initially BFF supported Morrison; it provided printouts of some of the tweets it had received, which Morrison subsequently took to the police. 

In July 2023 BFF was contacted by LGBTQ+ organisations stating that Morrison was an “unsafe person to be around” and aligning her views with former city councillor Jolene Bunting who allegedly spoke at the rally and has been referred to as an “anti-gay fascist”. BFF succumbed to the escalating threats, making a public statement that Morrison would be investigated and that BFF supported and defended the values of an organisation called “Queerspace NI”.

BFF’s board was informed of Morrison’s participation in the Let Women Speak event and the ensuing online campaign. She was sent home, denied access to her email account and the shared work drive, and asked to return her office keys. 

An external HR consultancy was engaged to investigate her attendance at Let Women Speak, on the basis that it might conflict with her duties as inclusion and audience development co-ordinator and the organisation’s stated values. 

Morrison began a grievance process and later went on sick leave, citing deterioration in her health. Both her initial grievance report and subsequent grievance appeal were rejected. 

Next steps

Morrison resigned from BFF stating constructive dismissal and submitted a claim for discrimination to an employment tribunal.

A two-week hearing on the case is taking place starting on 10th November 2025. 

Our case briefings are introductions to cases that concern the conflict between sex-based rights and policies and practices based on gender identity. Naomi Cunningham (chair of Sex Matters) was acting as counsel in her personal capacity. This information was compiled from public sources, last updated 10th November 2025. 

The post Sara Morrison v Belfast Film Festival appeared first on Sex Matters.

Lindsey (Linzi) Smith is a lesbian who holds gender-critical beliefs. She believes that replacing the concept of binary sex with gender identity undermines women’s rights and same-sex attraction.

Smith challenged the decision of Northumbria Police’s Chief Constable, Vanessa Jardine, to authorise uniformed officers to participate in Newcastle Pride 2024, including the display of Pride and Progress flags and a police vehicle carrying those symbols. She argued that this amounted to political expression inconsistent with the police duty of impartiality, particularly given the character of Northern Pride as a political event, featuring campaigning groups and messages supporting changes in law and policy relating to gender identity.

Chief Constable Jardine maintained that participation in Pride was lawful and aligned with the public-sector equality duty and the principle of policing by consent. Jardine said that NP’s participation in Pride was intended to promote inclusion and community confidence, not to endorse the political aims of the event.

Outcome

The court found that Chief Constable Jardine had failed to consider relevant factors, including the risk that marching in uniform could create the appearance of partiality. The judgment noted that “Those who do not agree with the position of Northern Pride on transgender rights are not welcome on marches organised by Northern Pride”. Jardine’s reasoning was judged to be outside the range of reasonable decisions open to her: the judgment stated that her reasoning did not provide a rational basis for her decision and also noted that she also had an incorrect understanding of the public-sector equality duty.

The court declared that the 2024 decision to authorise uniformed participation in Newcastle Pride was unlawful and stated that the Chief Constable should review her analysis of impartiality following the ruling. It was noted that forthcoming national police guidance should take the court’s findings into account.

Our case briefings are introductions to cases that concern the conflict between sex-based rights and policies and practices based on gender identity. This information was compiled from public sources, last updated 23rd October 2025.

The post Lindsey Smith v The Chief Constable of Northumbria Police appeared first on Sex Matters.

Sandie Peggie, an A&E nurse at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy, was subjected to a suspension and disciplinary investigation after objecting to sharing the hospital’s female changing room with Dr Beth Upton, a man who identifies as a woman. Peggie holds gender-critical beliefs that biological sex is immutable.

On 24th December 2023 Peggie found herself alone in the changing room with Upton. An alleged exchange of words took place leading Upton to file a complaint against Peggie, accusing her of bullying and creating a hostile environment, and describing the incident as a “hate incident”. Peggie was placed on special leave and was suspended pending a disciplinary investigation. NHS Fife’s HR department defended its inclusivity policies and stated that staff must respect each other’s gender identities.

After several months of suspension and disciplinary scrutiny, Peggie was allowed to return to work. However, she was subject to new restrictions, including changes to her shift patterns to facilitate supervision by senior staff. NHS Fife refused to provide a guarantee that only biological women would use the female changing room, maintaining that staff were permitted to use facilities that aligned with their “gender identity”.

In May 2024, Peggie submitted a formal claim to an employment tribunal against both NHS Fife and Dr Upton for sexual harassment, belief discrimination and victimisation including:

• being required to share a single-sex space with someone she believes to be male
• being disciplined and suspended after raising concerns
• being victimised for holding a gender-critical belief that biological sex is immutable.

Opposition to anonymity and private hearings

In September 2024, NHS Fife and Dr Upton sought an order to anonymise Upton’s identity and hold the tribunal in private, citing concerns over Upton’s mental health and safety. At a preliminary hearing in November 2024 the claimant called for this request to be rejected. Sex Matters, For Women Scotland, Tribunal Tweets and the press also intervened in support of open justice. Employment Judge Tinnion rejected the request to hold the tribunal in private or to anonymise the respondent, saying that the issues involved were of legitimate public debate and that open justice must be upheld. 

Pronouns in the hearing

During the preliminary hearing, Employment Judge Tinnion said he would refer neutrally to Upton by name or as “the second respondent” without using pronouns. But on the second day he referred to the respondent by feminine pronouns, which was queried by the claimant’s counsel. In the order on the privacy issue the tribunal used feminine pronouns for Upton throughout. The claimant’s solicitor wrote to the tribunal to argue that if in the full hearing the tribunal refers to Upton as “she” and “her” it would be communicating a preference for one side of the debate and undermining both the appearance and the reality of impartiality.

Next steps

The hearing began on 3rd February 2025 and ran for 10 days. It resumed on 16th July 2025 with witnesses being interviewed over a further 10 days and closing statements on 2nd and 3rd September 2025. 

On the last day, the legal team for NHS Fife and Dr Upton sought to amend their case to argue that Peggie was not subject to unlawful discrimination, but to lawful treatment based on conduct that was objectionable. The claimant objected to this late change. The judge ruled that this line of defence was anticipated in the pleadings, which referred to allegations of bullying and harassment, discriminatory conduct, using offensive language and acting in an aggressive and confrontational manner.

Role of Sex Matters in the case

Sex Matters is not a party to and is not funding Sandie’s case. Naomi Cunningham (chair of the Sex Matters board) is representing Sandie as part of her private practice in employment and equality law.

Read more about our involvement in the case.

Our case briefings are introductions to cases that concern the conflict between sex-based rights and policies and practices based on gender identity. Naomi Cunningham (chair of Sex Matters) was acting as counsel in her personal capacity. This information was compiled from public sources, last updated 29th September 2025. 

The post Sandie Peggie v NHS Fife and Beth Upton appeared first on Sex Matters.

Melanie Newman is a Detective Constable with the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and holds gender-critical views, which recognise the immutability of biological sex and question policies based solely on self-declared gender identity.

In March 2023, Newman attended an online event hosted by MPS to mark Trans Day of Visibility at New Scotland Yard. The event was organised by Kit Moore, a member of MPS’s intelligence team, and took place during working hours. The event featured external speakers including Eva Echo who the tribunal found who was known for strong and at times hostile views towards the beliefs of gender critical people 

Newman found Eva Echo’s speech particularly shocking, distressing and overtly political. In her notes, she recorded that Echo described individuals who raise concerns about single-sex spaces and women’s sports as being “driven by hate”, exhibiting “cult-like behaviour” and holding “twisted, distorted views”.

Following the event, Newman lodged a formal complaint and raised a grievance. However, she was informed that MPS would not pursue the matter, as Eva Echo was not employed by the force.

Newman subsequently submitted a formal claim against MPS, and the tribunal began on 10th March 2025.

Opposition to anonymity

During the employment-tribunal proceedings, MPS applied for anonymity for one of its witnesses Sex Matters and Tribunal Tweets all opposed the application, and Sex Matters made written submissions.

After a closed session, the tribunal rejected the anonymity application.

Findings by the tribunal

The tribunal rejected Newman’s claims of direct discrimination and harassment and dismissed her argument of “institutional capture” within MPS, stating that it was not “equipped to make such a wide-ranging finding about an organisation of 55,000 staff with a highly complex structure and operations”.

The tribunal accepted that Newman was genuinely offended by remarks made by Eva Echo, which it agreed could be perceived as hostile toward those with gender-critical beliefs, satisfying the subjective element of the harassment test. However, it concluded that given the voluntary nature and educational purpose of the event, it was not reasonable to interpret either the content of Echo’s speech or the MPS’s role in hosting and promoting the event as constituting unlawful harassment.

The tribunal found no evidence that the MPS discriminated against Newman or treated her less favourably than it would have treated someone with different beliefs who had made a similar complaint.

Appeal

Newman has launched a crowdfunder to support an appeal against the decision, citing its failure to consider the impact of the event on employees’ freedom of speech, and a faulty interpretation of a recent case, Higgs v Farmor’s School, as meaning that Article 10 ECHR constrains an employer’s ability to control workplace harassment. 

Our case briefings are introductions to cases that concern the conflict between sex-based rights and policies and practices based on gender identity. Naomi Cunningham (chair of Sex Matters) was acting as counsel in her personal capacity. This information was compiled from public sources, last updated 8th August 2025. 

The post Melanie Newman v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis appeared first on Sex Matters.

Allison Bailey was a client of Palmerston Veterinary Group with her dogs for over 13 years until she was deregistered in January 2023, after she had made a complaint about the quality of service. 

Bailey holds the gender-critical belief that sex is binary, immutable and important. These beliefs had brought her to public attention in previous successful litigation against her former barristers’ chambers and Stonewall, when she established that she had suffered unlawful belief discrimination.

Following a difficult conversation with a staff member about the medication available for her dog, Bailey made a written complaint. Staff alleged that she had a history of being aggressive and rude; without giving her warning or opportunity to respond, the surgery wrote to tell her she had been deregistered. The company claimed that her behaviour had been inappropriate, and that it had breached their “zero-tolerance” policy against abuse towards their staff.

The tribunal heard that while Bailey had been a sometimes difficult client, she had not been abusive. She had discussed her employment tribunal with her vet, and there had been gossip around the surgery concerning Bailey being a friend of JK Rowling. 

The practice manager, Sarah Cook, who was a key influence in the decision to deregister Bailey, denied being aware of Bailey’s connection with Rowling, but the tribunal concluded that this seemed unlikely. Cook said she did not know about Rowling’s views on sex and gender, but “if she had known more, she might have been disappointed”. The judge concluded: 

“It appears to me that Ms Cook was, in fact, disappointed upon learning about Rowling’s gender critical views.” [paragraph 55].

Dr Liz Munro, the member of the senior leadership team who signed the deregistration letter, initially denied that she knew anything about Ms Bailey but later admitted that she had been told she is a barrister who is black, gay and a friend of JK Rowling. 

It emerged that Dr Munro had held a team meeting on 10th June 2021 – the day that gender-critical beliefs were declared “worthy of respect in a democratic society” by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in the case of Forstater. At this meeting, she introduced “terminology on how to address transgender people”. This included instructions such as not to say “he was born a girl”, but “he was assigned female at birth”.

Dr Munro said she did not have strong feelings but chose to share this post in a team meeting, as she did not know a lot about preferred pronouns and terminology and thought that others might feel the same. However, when asked whether she considered gender-critical beliefs to be bigoted. Dr Munro took a long time to consider. She said she was not sure she would go as far as to use the word bigot, but maybe she would.

Outcome

The court ruled that the deregistration of Ms Bailey was unlawful and constituted discrimination on the basis of her gender-critical beliefs. 

This is the first goods and services case of gender-critical belief discrimination that has come to court. The case demonstrates that protection against gender-critical belief discrimination is not confined to employment relationships, but that service providers can also face liability if they discriminate against someone for being a “friend of JK Rowling”. 

Damages and costs are to be determined at a future hearing.

The post Allison Bailey v Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd (trading as Palmerston Veterinary Group) appeared first on Sex Matters.

Kristie Higgs was fired from her job as an administrator and work-experience manager at a Church of England secondary school after the school received a single complaint about her personal Facebook posts. 

She is a Christian and does not believe that someone can change their sex or gender. Her view is based on a belief in the literal truth of the Bible, and in particular Genesis 1:27: “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” She also holds traditional Christian beliefs about marriage. 

She reposted two Facebook posts with a petition about relationship and sex education in primary schools saying that it was “brainwashing” children and promoting mental illness.

After the school received an email from someone who called her views “offensive” and “homophobic and prejudiced… against the lgbt community” she was called in for an investigation meeting which went on for six hours. The school then fired her for gross misconduct. 

Findings by the tribunal

The initial tribunal rejected Kristie Higg’s claim of belief discrimination, saying that while her beliefs qualified for protection under the Equality Act, she had expressed them in such a way that that they “might reasonably lead people who read her posts to conclude that she was homophobic and transphobic” (hostile to gay and transgender people). 

The tribunal distinguished between the views that she did hold (which were protected) and what it said were “unacceptable views in relation to gay and trans people” which she might be perceived as holding (which were not protected). 

Findings by the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal

The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the tribunal’s judgement. It found that the tribunal was wrong to accept the school’s defence that it had acted not on Kristie Higg’s beliefs but the beliefs it perceived her to have. The Employment Appeal Tribunal sent the case back to the Employment Tribunal to be decided (rather than substituting its own decision), but Kristie Higgs appealed this decision and it went on to the Court of Appeal. 

The Court of Appeal found that Kristie Higgs had been unlawfully discriminated against by the school. It said in summary that: 

“The dismissal of an employee merely because they have expressed a religious or other protected belief to which the employer, or a third party with whom it wishes to protect its reputation, objects will constitute unlawful direct discrimination within the meaning of the Equality Act.” [175]

However, it can be lawful to take action against someone if their conduct is not simply an expression of belief but is itself objectively “objectionable” or “inappropriate”. In this case if the respondent can show that their response was proportionate to the inappropriate conduct, it would be lawful. 

The judgment also emphasised that:

“It is necessary in this context to judge a statement by what it actually says, and not by reference to a concern about what some readers might wrongly read into or infer from it.” [178]

The Supreme Court

Farmor’s School sought permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing against the finding of unlawful direct discrimination.

On 6th June 2025, the Supreme Court refused the school’s application to appeal, effectively closing the case and leaving the Court of Appeal’s judgment as the final and binding authority. 

Remedy

The case will now be remitted back to the Employment Tribunal for remedy to be decided. 

Our case briefings are introductions to cases that concern the conflict between sex-based rights and policies and practices based on gender identity. Sex Matters intervened in this case at the Court of Appeal. This information was compiled from public sources, last updated 6th June 2025.

The post Kristie Higgs v Farmor’s School appeared first on Sex Matters.

Ursula Doyle, a senior publisher with over 30 years of experience, worked at Hachette UK, one of the UK’s largest publishing houses, where she led Fleet, a specialist division she founded in 2016.

In 2021, Doyle published Material Girls by Kathleen Stock, a book critically examining gender-identity theory. Following the publication, Doyle became the target of sustained abuse from colleagues within the publishing industry, who labelled her transphobic and called for her to be shunned. 

Online harassment was common, with critics frequently tagging Hachette and its staff networks. Organised campaigns, including one by the social media group “The Young Refuseniks”, included Doyle in blocklists identifying so-called “transphobes” within the industry. Doyle claims that nothing was done to protect her from this abuse, which created a hostile environment for her. 

At the same time, Hachette introduced a new trans-inclusion policy, allowing male employees who identify as women to access female-only facilities. Doyle raised concerns about the policy’s legality and safety implications under the Equality Act 2010, and pointed out that women’s networks and faith networks had not been consulted. Her concerns were dismissed.

Over time, two authors requested to move their books away from Doyle’s imprint explicitly due to her gender-critical views and Fleet’s publication of writers with similar beliefs. Hachette agreed to these requests without prior consultation, undermining Doyle’s professional standing and leaving her unable to continue working in what had become a hostile and isolating environment.

Doyle resigned in April 2024 and brought a claim for discrimination against Hachette. She also challenged the legality of Hachette’s self-ID policy. 

Outcome

On 5th June 2025, the parties reached a confidential settlement, bringing legal proceedings to an end. The case will not proceed to a tribunal hearing, and no public judgment has been issued.

Our case briefings are introductions to cases that concern the conflict between sex-based rights and policies and practices based on gender identity. Naomi Cunningham (chair of Sex Matters) was acting as counsel in her personal capacity. This information was compiled from public sources, last updated 5th June 2025. 

The post Ursula Doyle v Hachette UK appeared first on Sex Matters.