Employment Tribunal Case to Protect Single-Sex Facilities at Work

As soon as toilets become mixed sex they become enclosed and private in their design. The floor-to door gaps disappear.

If there is anyone who has collapsed inside (people who have been spiked, people with heart conditions, strokes, diabetes, epilepsy, frailty, fever) it will not be noticed. So this is discrimination against the disabled (epilepsy is classed as a disability) and age (older people more risk of falls/collapse) and sex (females more likely to be spiked in a public place). Toilet cubicles become unsafe.

Because it is known people collapse in toilets (obviously it is where people head if they feel ill), it is known bodies stop the door opening. Therefore this type of enclosed toilet has to have a way of unlocking from the outside and opening outwards.

This creates unseen spaces that can be accessed easily from outside. So ideal for a man to hide in the cubicle next door, then open the cubicle that an unsuspecting person is in. And no chance of being witnessed by someone else entering the toilet area. This is discrimination against women and girls as they are more likely to be victims of sexual violence.

There are many recent examples of this happening in schools and nightclubs.

I work in HR, and have to use the accessible toilet as the office we use (one day a week if that) only has that or mixed sex toilets. Unfortunately due to being sexually assaulted in the toilet by two males when I was a teenager, men in the toilets is a very genuine trigger for me, and I say that as someone with diagnosed PTSD and years of reasonably successful therapy.

I will happily dig for you.

I found it easily when I googled 'Crowd Justice Protect Single-Sex Facilities at Work'.

CJ text.

Please support my employment tribunal case to protect single-sex facilities at work
I have issued an employment tribunal complaint against NHS England for indirect discrimination on the basis of sex (women), religion (Islam), philosophical belief (gender critical) and disability (PTSD) for having a policy in place which effectively renders the supposed single-sex toilet, changing room and showering facilities as mixed-sex.
According to NHSE’s trans staff policy, transwomen (born males) can use female facilities in addition to male and gender neutral facilities. Which means that NHSE expects women to share female facilities with biological males. If a woman is not happy with that, she is directed to use the gender neutral toilets, and transwomen (males) can continue using the female facilities. The policy is blatantly discriminatory against women, especially in those office bases where the showers are open plan.
Simultaneously, my claim also includes claims of direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation related to my philosophical belief (gender-critical).
This is one of the first cases in England where a court will be asked to decide whether such a trans staff policy is discriminatory against employees with other protected characteristics. There has been no Equality Impact Assessment conducted in relation to the policy. When developing the policy, NHSE did not thoroughly consider the needs of women or the implications of trauma and religion, or the normal and common boundary a female member of staff might assert that she just simply does not want to shower in direct line of sight with a biological male.
The response from NHSE has been extremely disappointing. I have been told that all staff members are expected to follow the policy. I have been told that NHSE is already offering single-sex female facilities, which can be used both by “those born female, and those who identify as female.” Their rationale for not excluding transwomen from women’s facilities is that “even if there would only be one transwoman excluded from the female facilities, we would consider that unjustifiable unlawful discrimination.” In its response, NHSE effectively denies the relevance of biological sex as the basis for single-sex spaces.
My claim is that the current staff policy is discriminatory on the basis of sex, religion, belief and disability and the facilities should be made female-only by excluding males.
I will be applying for full anonymity, which will be essential for me to take the case forward, given my personal circumstances. If my application for anonymity is not accepted at the preliminary hearing, I will pass all remaining donations to another case of my choice which seeks to secure women’s single-sex facilities or services.…
Like with all court cases, there is a risk of losing. This crowdfunding pays for my legal fees. I will not be benefitting financially from the crowdfunding because the money raised will go directly to my legal team’s client account. Any compensation from the employer is likely to be modest. I am pursuing this case because women’s rights to safe spaces, safeguarding and consent should not be overridden.
Yours faithfully,
Faye Russell-Caldicott

I will pm you

Thanks Faye. Could you give us some pointers on words to use that might help us get there with a Google search?