Here's what you need to know.
The Supreme Court ruling in April 2025 has created a complex legal environment. In December, two major tribunal cases delivered contrasting messages about what this means for workplaces.
In Peggie v NHS Fife, a nurse who objected to sharing a changing room with a trans colleague won part of her case, but not in the way many headlines suggested. The tribunal found NHS Fife had harassed Peggie by failing to properly investigate her complaint and by taking too long to respond. But crucially, the tribunal ruled it was lawful for the health board to allow trans women to use women's facilities. All claims against Dr. Beth Upton, the trans doctor at the centre of the case, were dismissed. The judge emphasised that decisions about facility access must be made case-by-case, not through blanket bans.
In Kelly v Leonardo, an engineer who complained about trans colleagues using women's toilets lost all her claims. The tribunal found Leonardo's trans-inclusive policy was "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim": maintaining an inclusive workplace. Judge Sutherland noted that only one employee out of 9,500 had complained, alternative facilities were available, and there was no evidence of increased risk.
Both claimants have announced their intention to appeal, so the legal uncertainty continues. But here's what's clear: employers still have a legal duty to support trans employees. The Supreme Court ruling didn't remove protections against discrimination for gender reassignment. It didn't require employers to ban trans people from appropriate facilities. And it didn't give anyone license to misgender or harass trans colleagues.
