Findings of Fact
16. The claimant applied for their role with the Trust in the name Heather
Lockwood. They noted on their application that they were non binary. They
commenced work on 5 November 2021. They remain employed by the
respondent. On 14 December 2023, with the support of their manager, the
claimant arranged for an email to be sent to those in the Primary Care
Psychological Service within the Trust advising that the claimant wished to be
known as Haech Lockwood, that they identified as Trans/gender fluid and did
not identify as male or female, that they wished to be known as Haech as
Case Number: 2401211/2024 and 2407178/2024
5
using their deadname caused gender dysmorphia and that the claimant’s
pronouns were: they/them.
17. Having received confirmation that their name had been changed by deed poll,
on 10 January 2022 the claimant notified their manager of the change and
asked that their name be changed on the first respondent’s systems. The
manager directed the claimant to let ICT know about the changes they
required to the email and ICT systems and the claimant did this by a service
desk request on 17 January 2022. They asked that their name be changed
on the email and network. There was no reference to different pronouns being
required or the reason for the change.
18. All requests received by the service desk are initially noted as “low urgency”,
unless the request related to a building or critical systems being off line or a
system being broken. A name change did not fall into this category. Name
changes were fairly common, normally for marriage reasons. The claimant
chased this request on 24 February when they explained the reason for the
name change request. ICT responded that day and advised the claimant that
their email would be forwarded to the service desk who would be asked that
it be dealt with as soon as possible.
19. Changes to the systems were put into effect. The Trust’s email and network
system was complex and replied upon both internal and external systems.
Some changes required updates to individual systems, but ICT put in place
the necessary changes. In late March 2022 the claimant noticed that their
deadname continued to appear in the Microsoft Teams appointments in their
outlook calendar and when sending emails. They raised this problem with the
ICT team and explained the distress it was causing them. As the ICT team
believed they had already made the changes to resolve these problems, it
was agreed that a complete reboot of the laptop would be required for the
claimant and that was arranged to take place a few days later.
20. The reboot was put on hold, as on 2 April 2022 the claimant was signed off
as unable to work by reason of “stress and Covid”.
21. The claimant submitted an informal grievance to their manager on 5 April
2022. Arrangements were made to meet with the claimant when they returned
from sickness. The claimant agreed to an Occupational Health appointment.
22. On 12 April 2022, the claimant received a letter from the Occupational Health
Department with an appointment, addressed to “Other Heather Lockwood”.
This caused the claimant further distress.
23. The matter was taken up by Ms Philips, the Head of Workforce Wellbeing and
an outcome was agreement upon a positive way forward to support the
claimant and others who were transgender.
Case Number: 2401211/2024 and 2407178/2024
6
24. A number of actions were identified by Ms Phillips to improve the service
offered to non binary staff. These are set out in an email to the claimant dated
22 April 2022. (page 265). This included adding Mx into the title list on the
respondent’s database; speaking to the Database providers to see if a field
could be included for pronouns to be added into referral forms and ensuring
members of the team undertake the Rainbow Pledge training, in addition to
their EDI mandatory training. The letter included an apology.
Informal grievance
25. The claimant met with Janet Foster, the claimant’s Clinical Lead, on 27 April
to discuss their informal grievance of 5 April. This related to issues with the
ICT, concerns about a lack of support from management and the incorrect
name on the letter from the OH department. The outcome was by provided
by way of a letter that day. In that outcome, Ms Foster provided an explanation
from Mr Farnan of the ICT team why the name change had not been updated
across all systems. Mr Farnan reported that a new Trust profile had now been
created on the claimant’s device in their new name and that this would
remove all traces of their previous Microsoft account. The final step to alter
the claimant’s profile needed to be completed on the respondent’s premises
and it was intended that when the claimant returned to work, at an agreed
time a Senior IT technician would remotely make the changes and assist the
claimant in signing back into all accounts.
26. Ms Foster apologised on behalf of the ICT team for the errors which had
occurred and confirmed that the claimant had expressed she was happy with
the plan going forward. The claimant however wanted a formal written
apology from the ICT team that acknowledged the harm this issue had caused
them and a plan of intended actions that the ICT team would put in place to
ensure this didn’t happen again. Ms Foster asked that the claimant accept
her letter as the formal written apology on behalf of the ICT team and the
Trust. Ms Foster also apologised to the claimant as their manager, if the
claimant had felt there was a lack of support from her when they were having
issues with the ICT department. Ms Foster confirmed that she had in fact
been in contact with the ICT team but had not kept the claimant informed. The
claimant asked for a formal written apology from her and an acknowledgment
of the harm that had occurred. Ms Foster asked that her letter be taken as an
apology for any harm that the claimant felt had been caused. The claimant
also requested a demonstration of improvements. The outcome
acknowledged that the issues with the OH/Workplace Wellbeing service had
been addressed directly. The letter provided a real and heartfelt
acknowledgment of the difficulties the claimant had faced and a full and
genuine apology.
Formal Grievance
Case Number: 2401211/2024 and 2407178/2024
7
27. The claimant was not satisfied with the outcome and on 3 May 2022 raised a
formal grievance. That was considered by James Sturney. The grievance
raised the same complaints but identified that the claimant did not accept the
apologies in the informal grievance outcome as apologies. They wanted,
amongst other outcomes a formal written apology from the ICT team (and not
on their behalf) and acknowledgment of the harm caused by its failures. They
wanted a demonstration of understanding of the harm caused in that the ICT
team did not recognise this issue as the serious matter it was for the claimant
and for others or their associated responsibilities.
28. In respect of their management team, the claimant wanted a formal
acknowledgment of the lack of support and communication received and an
apology in writing, together with a demonstration of improvements to avoid
the recurrence of this kind of failing in the future.
29. Mr Sturney met with the claimant on 20 May 2022 to discuss their grievance.
The claimant reiterated the outcomes they wanted from the process.
30. Following that meeting, on 24 May 2022 Ms Foster sent a further apology to
the claimant. Again, this was a supportive and positive letter and explained
that she had organised a programme of presentations by the Trust’s LGBT +
network for her team in June 2022. These covered transgender issues.
31. On 6 July 2022, following a meeting with the claimant, Mr Sturney wrote to
them confirming the outcome. That was an understanding and positive letter.
It focused upon the claimant and the identified steps which had or were being
taken to alleviate the distress which the unintentional actions of the ICT,
management, and Wellbeing teams had caused the claimant. Solutions were
put forward to seek to ensure the ICT issues were resolved, and written
apologies had been provided by Phil Spencer the Head of ICT and Janet
Foster, though the claimant did not feel that Ms Foster’s apology was
adequate, or her letter was in the right tone. The outcome also identified
positive steps to be taken in respect of training by the Trust’s Phil Makin, the
Equality Diversity and Inclusion Officer.
32. The claimant returned to work on 30 August 2022. The changes to their profile
on their laptop had been completed 24 August 2022.
33. The claimant continued to have other periods of absence between August
2022 and October 2023. In December 2023 they reduced their hours of work
and were issued with a new contract of employment. That contract was in the
name of Haech Lockwood. They carried out much of their work from home
after that date.
Second Formal Grievance
Case Number: 2401211/2024 and 2407178/2024
8
34. The series of incidents which the claimant relies upon in these proceedings
as allegations of harassment occurred between 4 October 2023 and 31
January 2024. They were the substance of a Dignity at Work complaint
initially raised on 10 October 2023 but added to during the following months.
Those complaints were considered by Catherine De Zwaan. A full
investigation was undertaken, and Ms De Zwaan provided her written
outcome on 3 July 2024, having met with the claimant to provide it in person
first. Reference to the outcome of the investigation in respect of each of the
allegations below is reference to that grievance.
Incident A: 4 October 2023: Misgendering C in Service Desk ticket referring
to “her”
35. On 5 July 2023, the claimant contacted the ICT service desk by phone to
report an issue with their system. The call was taken by Jane Graves. She
logged the call as a ticket and the ticket was automatically sent to the claimant
by email. That ticket used the pronoun “her” to describe the claimant. It said:
“Customer would like to be able to use her Daily Task toolbar in Normal, but
settings is not able to be changed from Minimised”
36. The email was seen by the claimant on 4 October 2023 upon their return to
work after illness. The claimant asked that the ticket be reopened and the
toolbar issue be looked into. The claimant noted at the bottom of the message
that this was an act of misgendering which they found distressing that the
correct pronouns “they/their” be used in the future.
37. Upon receiving the message, Ms Graves immediately messaged the claimant
and apologised for the mistake and any distress she had caused. She went
on to arrange to discuss the toolbar issue with the claimant. Ms Graves
corrected the “her” to “their” on the service ticket and added a note on it of
the claimant’s preferred pronouns so that the next person who spoke with the
claimant about the issue would be aware of them.
38. The claimant advised their manager, Mr Woodward that they were
considering submitting a Dignity at Work complaint.
39. The claimant raised this issue as part of their grievance. Following an
investigation, Ms De Zwaan concluded that: Ms Graves didn’t know what the
claimants pronouns were when she took the call and the claimant did not tell
her. Ms Graves did not ask either. The staff details were provided by the NHS
national ESR system which did not have a pronoun field. The ICT desk was
very busy by nature and its staff were under additional pressure at that time.
This had also prevented them from undertaking optional transgender
awareness training. Ms Graves had not acted intentionally in using the
claimant’s incorrect pronoun and a reasonable attempt had been made to
Case Number: 2401211/2024 and 2407178/2024
9
remedy the situation at time, an apology was provided, and the service ticket
updated to reflect the claimant’s pronouns.
40. We accept that Ms De Zwaan’s conclusions are an accurate summary of the
reasons for the mistake.
Incident B: 10 October 2023: Deadname reappearing in Mail Central
41. The claimant and others in the Trust use a system called Mail Central to
create letters which are later sent out to patients in the post. On 10 October
2023, while creating a letter, the claimant’s deadname email address
appeared next to their correct email address. The claimant was distressed by
this as they had understood that all ICT issues had been resolved and raised
their concern with their line manager, Mr Woodward straight away. The
claimant accepts that Mr Woodward was understanding and supportive and
said he would take it up with ICT. A week later he reported to the claimant that
the issue had been resolved and that he would make enquiries as to why it
had happened.
42. This issue was investigated by Ms De Zwaan. Her conclusions were that
when a full reboot of the claimant’s laptop had occurred, the claimant had
provided a list of all of the system and software they used for their job. That
did not include the Mail Central system. The claimant wasn’t asked if they
used this software. As such the ICT team were not aware that the claimant
used this system and as a result their name had not been changed on it in
August 2022. There was no intention to cause offence to the claimant. The
investigation found that the ICT system relied upon each staff member being
aware of each piece of software they use for a comprehensive name change
to be carried out and there was no full list of systems available to ICT.
Although this hadn’t been communicated to the claimant or staff at the time,
Ms De Zwaan concluded that a reasonable attempt was undertaken by ICT
to change the claimant’s personal details by the Mail Central system but that
was missed by ICT and the claimant.
43. We accept that at the time Ms De Zwaan’s conclusions were what the ICT
team understood were the reasons for the deadname email address
appearing. At the hearing before us, Mr Spencer indicated that they had since
discovered that the issue was in fact due to problem with the claimant’s own
laptop. This would make more sense as the claimant reported no problems in
the 12 months since the reboot of their laptop.
Incident C: 10 October 2023: Misgendering at Vaccination clinic
44. The claimant attended an internal vaccination clinic for a flu/Covid vaccination
on 10 October 2023. They noted within the form together with their name and
Case Number: 2401211/2024 and 2407178/2024
10
personal details that they were non binary. This was not spotted by the nurse
delivering the vaccinations who was either Linda Carrington or Amanda Stein.
The claimant has been unable to identify who spoke to them that day, but
says that the nurse read the form and stated “OK so she is here for both a flu
and vaccination clinic.” Neither of the nurses are individual respondents.
45. The claimant was distressed by the incident. They did not correct the nurse
at the time, and considered that this was not a minor oversight, as they
considered that the nurse should have spotted their non binary status. The
form did not identify what pronouns the claimant preferred. The claimant
reported the incident to their line manager and it was added to their grievance.
46. Ms De Zwaan conclusions included that the clinic was a drop in session and
very busy and the staff were under pressure to complete several vaccinations
in each session.
47. Further that the practice of the staff was to focus upon reading those parts of
the form which were clinically relevant to ensure safe and effective
administration of the vaccine. This had resulted in the gender field on the form
not being properly acknowledged. Patient safety and effectiveness were
given priority over patient experience. That the misgendering was not
intentional and that both nurses acknowledged the distress caused and had
both offered to make a full apology.
48. The Tribunal heard from Ms Carrington and read the statement from Ms Stein.
It is clear that both were genuinely concerned at any offence caused to the
claimant and as a result of having this issue drawn to their attention and the
recommendations made by Ms De Zwaan, have changed their own practices
to check pronouns as routine.
Incident D: 11 October 2023: Misgendering in call log and email referring to
“her” and “she”.
49. On 11 October 2023, the claimant called the ICT service helpdesk and spoke
to Mr Brett Williamson. During the call the claimant was cut off and BW put a
note of the system saying:
Unable to call Haech back as her call came through on CISCO jabber and us
working remotely and the machine also showing as offline. If Haech calls
back, we need to run the O365 installer on her machine and test the link she
has been sent to join another organisation”.
50. The claimant had understood following the call with Jane Graves that a note
had been made on the system with their correct pronouns. In fact that note
only appeared on the particular service ticket as there was no way of putting
a pronoun field on the service desk system itself.
Case Number: 2401211/2024 and 2407178/2024
11
51. The claimant was distressed and disappointed at the further misgendering.
They considered that no learning had taken place by the previous incidents
with ICT and that matters needed to be taken further. They again referred it
to their manager, who was supportive but frustrated for the claimant that it
had happened again.
52. This issue was investigated by Ms De Zwaan whose conclusions included
that neither the claimant nor Mr Williamson had asked each other what
pronouns they would wish to be known by, that information about pronouns
is not available to the ICT service desk as it is not information which is held
in the national NHS employee database known as ESR, that Mr Williamson
did not therefore know the claimant’s preferred pronouns. That the claimant
did not raise it with Mr Williamson at the time, and since becoming aware, Mr
Williamson has changed his practice. That the very busy nature of the ICT
service contributed to the incident, due to staff being under additional
pressure at a time of staff shortages and that this had also hindered the team
is being released for optional Transgender Awareness Training.
53. We accept this as summary of the reasons for the misgendering by Mr
Williamson.
54. On 11 October the claimant submitted a Dignity At work complaint to their
manager.
Incident E: 12 October 2023: Misgendering in face-to-face conversation
referring to “she” and “Helen”.
Incident F: 17 October 2023: Email from YD denying misgendering and failing
to apologise
Incident I: 31 January 2024 YD failing to acknowledge C in corridor
interaction responding with “hi” and turning away.
55. On 12 October 2023, Ms Dunn had a conversation with the claimant in the
claimant’s room. Ms Dunn was reporting a conversation she had had with one
of the claimant’s patients who was being handed back to the claimant
following a period of absence. The conversation was friendly, and during that
conversation, Ms Dunn relayed what the patient had said and in doing so
used the word “she” in respect of the claimant and also referred to the patient
calling the claimant “Helen.”
56. We accept Yvette Dunn’s evidence that she was quoting a patient. This is
supported by her referring to the name “Helen”, even though this was never
the claimant’s name. This is more likely to have been a mistake of the patient
than Ms Dunn who was aware of the claimant’s name and non binary gender.
The claimant says that Ms Dunn did not need to use the pronoun “she” and
in the context of the conversation should have changed the language to
Case Number: 2401211/2024 and 2407178/2024
12
ensure the claimant was not misgendered. The difficulty which we have in
assessing whether that is correct or not is that the claimant has not told us
exactly what words were said by Ms Dunn. As such we cannot make that
assessment. The burden is upon the claimant and in the absence of such
context, we cannot say whether this is correct.
57. The claimant did not alert Ms Dunn to their concern and the conversation was
amicable. Ms Dunn left to go to her own room. Shortly afterwards the claimant
emailed Ms Dunn to express their concerns and told Ms Dunn that she had
misgendered them. The claimant commented that they understood it was
entirely without malice and was likely to be a mistake. They explained that
being misgendered was “like a gong going off in their head” and that was why
they couldn’t mention it in the conversation. The claimant then proceeded to
put paper across all but a few inches of the glass panel between the
claimant’s and Ms Dunn’s room. Although the claimant says they did this
because they felt unsafe, we are unclear what the claimant means by this.
There was no action by Ms Dunn which would have reasonably led the
claimant to be concerned about their safety. We believe the claimant had not
considered that by doing so, it made Ms Dunn feel intimidated.
58. Ms Dunn responded by email, expressing confusion and saying that she did
not believe she had misgendered the claimant and she was quoting the client,
which was indicative as to why she had used the third person. She asked
that the claimant raise this with her at the time in the future so that they could
avoid any misunderstandings and avoid causing them any distress. The email
ended with an offer to discuss matters further face to face and the email was
signed off “warmest regards”. A week later the claimant forwarded the emails
to their manager and asked that they be added to their Dignity at Work
complaint and that they have his support. The claimant said that it was
inappropriate to discuss the incident with Ms Dunn face to face, in view of the
nature of her response.
59. Although Ms Widdett seeks to say that Ms Dunn was not credible, we
disagree. The rules which Ms Dunn said she did not know in the grievance
investigation were whether there was an obligation to change the pronouns
to those preferred by the claimant when quoting another person, in this case
the patient. It is clear to us that Ms Dunn and the claimant had different views
and understandings about this and whether in not doing so, Ms Dunn had
misgendered the claimant. Further when reading the quote on page 573 in
Ms Dunn’s investigation meeting, it does not on our reading suggest that Ms
Dunn is saying she read out clinical notes when speaking to the claimant,
which she accepts that she did not, but is using that as an example of not
knowing what the rules are and goes on to give another example being
“repeating verbatim” what a client has said.
Case Number: 2401211/2024 and 2407178/2024
13
60. Ms Dunn’s suggestion to mediate was rejected outright by the claimant who
said in evidence that they did not want mediation, they just wanted the
misgendering to stop.
61. Some three months later on 31 January 2024, the claimant arrived at the
office and saw Ms Dunn speaking with her manager in the doorway of the
manager’s office. The claimant alleges that Ms Dunn failed to acknowledge
them initially and when the claimant said good morning, Ms Dunn said “hi”.
and turned away. We do not accept that Ms Dunn was seeking to ignore the
claimant as alleged. She responded when the claimant said good morning,
while she was engaged in another conversation. Ms Dunn and the claimant
saw each other intermittently when their days in the office coincided. They
had seen each other between the incidents in October and this occasion and
had interacted without problem.
Incident G: 3 January 2024: Sending Employment contract with C’s
deadname
62. On 3 January 2024, the claimant asked the respondent’s HR department for
a copy of their contract. The claimant was provided with copies of two
contracts that day. The first was a copy of the contract they had signed on 27
September 2021, which was in the claimant’s deadname, Heather Lockwood.
The second was a later contract reflecting the claimant’s reduction in hours
in December 2022. That contract was in the name Haech Lockwood.
63. The receipt of the contract in the claimant’s deadname caused them distress.
64. In the claimant’s grievance, Ms De Zwaan concluded that this was a historical
document that could not be changed as it reflected facts that were legally
correct at the time. We were advised that this was in line with the
respondent’s document retention policy, which was not disputed.
Incident H: 10 January 2024: Allocating service user to C despite Case Alert
saying user “would prefer to see a female therapist”.
65. On 10 January 2024, the claimant was sent a request by their administration
team from a patient for a review call. The claimant noted on the patient system
that there was an alert that the patient would prefer to see a female therapist.
The claimant checked the notes on the system to see if there was a record of
the conversation with the patient, but there was not. The claimant emailed
their line manager, Mr Woodward and the manager of the Administration
Team to bring it to their attention and raise a complaint.
66. The claimant was caused distress and felt “invalidated” by this exchange.
Case Number: 2401211/2024 and 2407178/2024
14
67. Mr Woodward apologised for the allocation and arranged for the appointment
to be cancelled and for the removal of that patient from the claimant’s
caseload and reallocated the patient to another colleague.
68. This issue was considered by Ms De Zwaan and following an investigation,
she concluded that although the patient had requested a female therapist, the
administration team had checked with the patient who had confirmed that
they were happy to speak to a clinician of any gender in their one-off review
call. That was why the patient had been allocated to the claimant. She found
that apprehensions and anxieties existed in the working relationship between
the administration team and the claimant and that had led to a breakdown in
effective interaction and communication. In this situation we understood that
Ms De Zwaan was referring to the administration team not putting a note of
the call with the patient when they checked. Ms De Zwaan found that this
was the main factor contributing to the incident and the reason why the
claimant was unaware that the patient was happy to speak to a clinician of
any gender. Further that the administration team were diligent in their booking
of appointments, that individual patient needs are handled in a person –
centred way and that clinicians were aware that the team would always
contact a client if they mention specific requirements. She concluded that no
misgendering had taken place as the client was happy to see a clinician of
any gender for the one off Review call.
69. Ms De Zwaan made a number of recommendations in the outcome to Dignity
at Work grievance including raising awareness of transgender issues,
clarification of preferred pronouns by both parties at the outset of calls and
appointments and personal details to be checked at the vaccinations clinic
alongside those related to safety. These have to the most part been
implemented where practical and possible to do.
