UK Law Requires Separate Changing and Toilet Facilities for Men and Women in Workplaces:

Image

Insights from the Hutchison Judgment

In a landmark employment tribunal ruling handed down in January 2026, eight nurses from Darlington Memorial Hospital successfully challenged the County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust over its policy allowing a “trans” gender colleague aka a man (a biological male identifying as a woman, referred to as “Rose Henderson”) to use female changing facilities. The tribunal found that this policy violated the nurses’ dignity, created a hostile environment, and breached key health and safety legislation requiring separate facilities for men and women based on biological sex.

The judgment emphasised that workplace separation of facilities, particularly for changing rooms and washing areas, is not optional but mandated by law, with terms like “men” and “women” interpreted as referring to biological sex, in line with the Supreme Court’s decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers [2025] I.C.R. 899.

This article outlines the primary legislation underpinning this requirement, drawing directly from the tribunal’s reserved judgment and related commentary. To ensure factual accuracy, additional insights from a fact-checking analysis on related school toilet laws have been incorporated, highlighting overlaps and distinctions in UK regulations.

The Core Legislation: Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992

The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/3004) form the foundation of UK workplace welfare standards. These regulations apply to most workplaces, including hospitals, and explicitly require separate facilities for men and women where necessary for reasons of health, safety, propriety (modesty/privacy), or dignity. They also extend to staff facilities in educational settings, as confirmed in legal analyses.

Key provisions cited in the judgment include:

  • Regulation 20 – Sanitary Conveniences (Toilets) This requires suitable and sufficient sanitary conveniences, which must be separate for men and women unless provided in a room intended for use by one person at a time with a door that can be secured from inside. While not directly quoted in the Hutchison judgment, this provision aligns with the overall requirement for sex-separated facilities and is emphasised in broader fact-checks on UK toilet laws.
  • Regulation 21(2)(h) – Washing Facilities This mandates separate washing facilities (including showers) for men and women, with a narrow exception only for single-occupancy rooms that can be locked from the inside and used by one person at a time. Exact text quoted in the judgment (para. 371):

“separate facilities are provided for men and women, except where and so far as they are provided in a room the door of which is capable of being secured from inside and the facilities in each such room are intended to be used by only one person at a time.”

Image
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Bethany-Hutchison-Others-v-County-Durham-and-Darlington-NHS-Foundation-Trust-2501192-24-Others-Reserved-judgment.pdf

In the case, the tribunal noted that facilities with only curtains (not lockable doors) did not meet the exception, meaning allowing a biological male into female washing areas breached this regulation, contributing to findings of indirect sex discrimination and harassment.

  • Regulation 24(2) – Changing Facilities Where workers must wear special clothing (e.g., nurses’ uniforms) and cannot change elsewhere due to health or propriety reasons, changing facilities must be suitable; including separate provision or use for men and women. Exact text quoted in the judgment (paras. 309, 372):

“the facilities mentioned in that paragraph shall not be suitable unless they include separate facilities for, or separate use of facilities by, men and women where necessary for reasons of propriety and the facilities are easily accessible, of sufficient capacity and provided with seating.”

Image
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Bethany-Hutchison-Others-v-County-Durham-and-Darlington-NHS-Foundation-Trust-2501192-24-Others-Reserved-judgment.pdf
Image
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Bethany-Hutchison-Others-v-County-Durham-and-Darlington-NHS-Foundation-Trust-2501192-24-Others-Reserved-judgment.pdf

The tribunal highlighted that the Trust’s policy ignored this requirement, forcing female nurses to share spaces or change externally, and referenced the earlier High Court case Post Office v Footit [1999] as precedent for similar breaches.

These regulations cover sanitary conveniences (toilets), washing facilities, and changing accommodation broadly, with separation mandated unless single-occupancy lockable options apply.

The tribunal stressed that the terms “men” and “women” must be interpreted consistently with biological sex definitions under the Equality Act 2010 for coherence (judgment paras. 373, 431):

“The reference to ‘men’ and ‘women’ in the 1992 Regulations must, in our judgement, be interpreted harmoniously and consistent with ‘sex’ and ‘men’ and ‘women’ under the Equality Act.”

No other primary legislation was cited as directly mandating separate facilities; the Equality Act 2010 supports discrimination claims but defers to the 1992 Regulations for facility separation.

Key Excerpts from the Tribunal’s Ruling

In their ruling, Employment Judge Sweeney and Tribunal members Denise Newey and Malcolm Brain declared:

“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.”

“By not taking seriously and declining to address the Claimants’ concerns of August and September 2023 and of 04 April 2024, regarding that part of the Transition in the Workplace Policy that afforded biological males access female changing room, the Respondent engaged in unwanted conduct related to gender reassignment, which had effects of creating for the Claimants a hostile and intimidating environment.”

These powerful statements underscore the tribunal’s view that the policy not only breached health and safety regulations but also constituted unlawful harassment under the Equality Act 2010.

Judicial Interpretation and Application in the Case

The tribunal ruled that the Trust’s “Transition in the Workplace” policy unlawfully prioritised gender identity over biological sex-based protections, breaching the 1992 Regulations. This led to successful claims of harassment related to sex (s.26 Equality Act 2010) and indirect sex discrimination (s.19), as the policy disadvantaged women without justification.

Lead claimant Bethany Hutchison described the ruling as “a victory for common sense and for every woman who simply wants to feel safe at work.”

This case, alongside school-specific regulations, reinforces that employers and educational institutions must comply with the 1992 Regulations’ biological sex-based separation requirements, providing a clear legal framework for single-sex facilities in UK workplaces, and other institutions in the UK.

Image

Implications for Schools and Educational Settings

While the Hutchison case focuses on general workplaces, similar principles apply to schools under distinct but complementary legislation. A fact-checking article critiquing media coverage of EHRC guidance on “trans” pupils in schools clarifies that UK laws have long mandated separate toilet and changing facilities based on biological sex, countering claims of legal ambiguity.

Image

Key school-specific legislation includes:

  • School Premises (England) Regulations 2012 (Reg. 4): Requires separate single-sex toilets for pupils aged 8 and over, and separate changing facilities for those aged 11 and over, with exceptions only for single-user, lockable rooms.
  • Education (Independent School Standards) Regulations 2014 (Part 5, para. 23): Mandates separate facilities for boys and girls, limited to single-user options where appropriate.
  • Education Act 2002 (s.175): Imposes safeguarding duties to ensure pupil welfare, including safe, sex-segregated spaces.
  • Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSIE) 2024: Emphasises risk assessments and prohibits mixed-sex facilities, which violate safeguarding standards and are reportedly used in 25% of schools despite legal requirements.
  • Equality Act 2010: As in workplaces, defines “sex” biologically (s.212) and allows proportionate exclusions from single-sex facilities for privacy and safety (Sch. 3, Part 7), without mandating access based on gender identity.
  • Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992: Applies specifically to school staff, requiring suitable facilities including gender-neutral options where needed, but not automatic access to opposite-sex spaces.

The fact-check argues that media portrayals of “confusion” from EHRC guidance ignore these longstanding requirements (in place since at least 2010/2012), and that single-user facilities provide suitable alternatives for trans pupils without breaching discrimination laws. It corrects assertions of new burdens, noting non-compliance with mixed-sex setups predates recent updates.

imeline for the story:

Victory for Darlington nurses as Judge rules policy that allows men into women’s changing rooms is unlawful harassment and discrimination

2023:

  • July: The female nurses raised serious concerns with management about having to share the changing room with ‘Rose.’

2024:

  • March: 26 nurses sign a letter to the Trust raising cultural sensitivity and abuse concerns. The Trust refuses to act and dismisses their concerns, telling them to “broaden their mindset,” “be educated,” and compromise because “Rose identifies as a woman”.
  • 28 May: Nurses file their case with the Newcastle Employment Tribunal, supported by the Christian Legal Centre, citing sexual harassment and sex discrimination for being forced to share a female changing room with a biological male identifying as female, known as “Rose”.
  • June: The nurses publicly launch their case against the County Durham & Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, for anyone uncomfortable getting undressed in front of a man.
  • July: The nurses are informed by management that their ward manager’s office was being cleared out and would become a ‘temporary’ locker room to protect the rights and safety of women in the workplace.
  • 3 October: Nurses launch the Darlington Nursing Union (DNU) to discuss their case. He says he believes something has ‘gone wrong in our society’ on these issues, that ‘we have created an unnecessary conflict’ and that society has moved backwards on equality.
  • 24 October: The nurses meet Wes Streeting for protecting women and ensuring access to safe single-sex spaces in the NHS.
  • November: Nurses send draft guidance to Wes Streeting and says equality and diversity policies need revising, not just in the NHS, but in workplaces across the country.
  • 2 December: Claire Coutinho, the Shadow Equalities Minister, meets with the nurses, after launching legal action.

2025:

Images and video

Video promo:

https://youtu.be/nTa9jM7-17M

Darlington nurses outside of court:

References

Bethany-Hutchison-Others-v-County-Durham-and-Darlington-NHS-Foundation-Trust-2501192-24-Others-Reserved-judgmentDownload