ChatGPT says:
Yes, UK case law has established that failing to provide single-sex toilet facilitiesoffering only unisex optionscan constitute direct sex discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
Key Case Law
Earl Shilton Town Council v Miller [2023] EAT 5
In this case, Ms. Miller, a female employee, was required to use either a shared toilet used by a children’s playgroup or a cubicle within the men’s toilets, which lacked privacy and sanitary facilities. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld that these arrangements subjected her to less favourable treatment compared to male colleagues, amounting to direct sex discrimination.
Abbas v ISS Facility Services
Miss Abbas, the sole female employee at her site, had access only to a men’s washroom and a shared accessible toilet, which lacked proper locks and hygiene standards. The tribunal found that the absence of a dedicated female facility constituted direct sex discrimination.
Legal and Regulatory Context
Under the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, employers are required to provide separate toilet facilities for men and women unless each facility is in a separate room and can be locked from the inside. The Equality Act 2010 allows for single-sex services when they are a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, such as ensuring privacy and dignity.
Recent Developments
A UK Supreme Court ruling in April 2025 clarified that “sex” in the Equality Act refers to biological sex. Following this, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) advised that eliminating single-sex toilets in favor of unisex facilities could lead to indirect sex discrimination against women.
Conclusion
Providing only unisex toilets without single-sex options can be discriminatory, particularly if it compromises privacy or dignity. Employers and service providers should ensure compliance with legal requirements by offering appropriate single-sex facilities.