Tribunal discussion thread supporting FayeRC in case against NHS England part 2

It seems to me that the disability and religion claims were rejected because they both involved indirect intersectional discrimination or discrimination on the basis of two protected characteristics instead of indirect discrimination on the basis of a single protected characteristic. Per the Tribunal, such dual discrimination claims are't prohibited by the Equality Act.

pp 45-46 of the judgment deal with those claims

186.1 the Act does not contain any enforceable provisions relating to
discrimination on the basis of a combination of two or more protected
characteristics. There are provisions under section 14 of the Act that relate
to combined direct discrimination only (not to combined indirect
discrimination, harassment or any other complaints under the Act),
however these have never been brought into force;
. . . .
The claimant’s representative . . . clarified that her indirect discrimination complaint related to female Muslims only. . . .
the claimant’s indirect discrimination complaint relating to disability was
pleaded on the basis of women who experienced PTSD as a result of male
sexual violence, rather than individuals (both male and female) who
experienced PTSD as a result of male sexual violence.

186.5 we would have concluded that the claimant’s complaints of indirect
discrimination in relation to religious belief and in relation to disability
amount to complaints of combined indirect discrimination, that are not
protected under the Act. . . .

186.6 section 14 of the Act is not in force. However, it is clear from the drafting
of section 14 of the Act that Parliament intended that complaints of
combined discrimination would (when in force) be limited to those of
combined direct discrimination only. . . .

186.7 in addition, the Explanatory Notes to the Act state at paragraph 68:
“68.Previous legislation only allowed for claims alleging discrimination
because of a single protected characteristic. This section allows those who
have experienced less favourable treatment because of a combination of
two relevant protected characteristics to bring a direct discrimination claim,
such as where the single-strand approach may not succeed.”

The ET isn't saying that there was no harm or indirect discrimination, they're saying that the Equality Act doesn't cover combined indirect discrimination claims. If Faye had shown discrimination to both male and female Muslims (i.e., religion only) or both male and female PTSD victims who had been subject to male violence (i.e., disability only), the Tribunal might have found for her on those claims. They didn't rule on those questions because the Tribunal found that, as a matter of law, Faye's combined claims weren't covered.

I was disappointed with that aspect of the judgment but I don't know if the ET was correct regarding combined claims under the Equality Act.

Such great news!! Well done Faye, and thank you.

Great news. Looking forward to the day when nobody needs to take an expensive case to get clarity.

Well done Faye, thank you!

Well while they hide behind their keyboards pretending to be women, an actual woman was astonishingly brave in real life, and judged to be correct.

So sod them.

I think he has taken one too many hockey balls to the head

Some comments on reddit including calling LS names because, you know, the most oppressed are so kind

https://rejserin.medium.com/anti-trans-employment-tribunal-cases-e098a8391bf9

This is fresh over from Reddit…. But it’s hard to make head or tail of….

Gender critics are using the UK civil courts to enforce their reductive beliefs because they cannot face the fact that employers and employees are overwhelmingly trans inclusive.

Gender critics cleave to a philosophical belief about biology which has no actual grounding in biological science precisely because it is a belief which do not require any evidence to uphold.

Well done Faye – thank you on behalf of all women.

Wondedful news! Well done Faye, and thank you ❤

Any TRA meltdowns yet? 🤭

And of course, indecent exposure is still a crime. Well, in theory.

As to genital inspections - the Judge must read these boards - no need to look for willies - just enforce policies against your employees whose behaviour you can control.

“We accept that it would not be possible for the respondent to guarantee that the single-sex toilets would only be accessed by women. However, this does not mean that the respondent could not take reasonable steps to ensure that such a policy was complied with by its employees and visitors, for example by making it a disciplinary offence to breach any employee policy or by requiring visitors to comply with appropriate policies.”

Not being able to enforce doens't give you permission for a free for all.

It wasn't held up in the tribunal but I found their reasoning very weak and very odd on that point.

I agree - her being a woman was the very point. But when I read about the need to wash before prayer - how could allowing men into a single sex space not have discriminated against someone who had a religious need to be in that space.

The judgment felt weak on that point.

For all employers

“reliance on contemporaneous guidance or good practice advice cannot justify an incorrect interpretation of the law. Employers must seek their own legal advice and ensure that they are applying the law correctly.”

Doesn't matter which EDI trainer or Union rep gave you bad advice - you can't sue them if they sell you up the river. Get legal advice and pay for it so you can sue the lawyer who gets it wrong.

Insurers should be pushing businesses to get their houses in order. Post this the claims should come thick and fast.

Did the fact that she was Muslim need to be the big story, the Times? Especially when the judgment pretty much said the claim on religious grounds was irrelevant, because all women were disadvantaged.

Some facts from the judgment on how special these special laydee men are:

63% of the 18,000 workforce were women
Approx 25 people were trans, only 5 were confirmed trans women
So 5 men are worth more than 11,000 women.

Sounds like gender ideology hates women right there.

Thank you Faye! 💐
Times article
https://www.thetimes.com/article/6af5d639-c924-4c5a-ab03-055d83648ab2?shareToken=1a5c26c2ee1eaffc245f0f1e9414d4d6&ver=article

The Stonewall supplied trans friendly policy was not by any stretch of the imagination legal

In the definition section:

2.1 “Trans” is an umbrella term used to describe people whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth. Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, gender-queer, gender-fluid, non-binary, gendervariant, cross-dresser, genderless, agender, non-gendered, third gender, two-spirit, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman, trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois.

So Billy who is a cross-dresser - i.e. has a sexual festish - is per this policy trans and allowed in the womens loos??

Thank you Faye, another crack in the wall.
Thanks to the posters who have picked out the really juicy bits of the judgement - they make for encouraging reading.
Am hoping that Sal gets similar good sense delivered on Friday.

Link again for those who want to have a read:

https://didlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/ACFrOgAFwh2AfMqBuj1ETDwttJVWcjfk841vxpCGYTRsjWHjjYsa2TVUun2LxUcnWZlfN0UDoxLIa88dO32xRIHGvMimifrGvKy8Oe_U5M2stzoTGC3wcVHgu0-gZUInr1nSUKC4-o4X6q5iH2IWoaItFGgmFO7YaE2QCSXtMw.pdf

As to whether women should be excluded rather than make some provision for men or women who have a gender identity -

The judge clearly says - why displace or remove rights from the women - make the 5 trans identified men make way.

179. We appreciate that at Quarry House, there were no unisex shower facilities. However, we note that as part of the claimant’s grievance appeal outcome the respondent stated that if they were still based at Quarry House, they could have considered alternative measures such as exploring if and how access could be provided to secure, single occupancy showering facilities or considering possibilities such as:

179.1 if it would be possible for the claimant to use the showers at certain times on their own;
179.2 whether it was possible to install locks to make a shower area private; or
179.3 if there were any arrangements that could have been made with the
Leisure Centre.

180. If these measures could have been considered for the disadvantaged groups with whom the claimant shared protected characteristics, then they could have also been considered for the respondent’s trans staff as an alternate measure to permitting trans staff to use the women’s single-sex shower facilities.

I love how dear old Jolyon has helped further the trans cause by providing the very judgment needed in Tribunals to say that employers comply with the workplace regs by exluding men with a female gender identity.

Thank you Jolyon - the only decent piece of work that GLP has done in many a year.

172. We note that adhering to the Equality Act 2010 and guidance/published good practice advice are legitimate aims. However, there is no express legal right for a transgender person to use the single-sex facilities of their gender identity under the Act or under the Workplace Regulations. The key reasons why we reached this conclusion are:

172.1 the Workplace Regulations do not contain any definition of ‘men’ or of ‘women’;

172.2 the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland in April 2025 held that the words ‘sex’, ‘woman’ and ‘man’ in sections 11 and 212(1) of the Act refer to ‘biological sex’, a ‘biological woman’ and a ‘biological man’. The Supreme Court’s decision in April 2025 clarified the words used by the Act as it has always applied; it is not limited to events that take place after the Supreme Court’s decision was made in April 2025;

172.3 the provisions of the Act do not override Regulation 20 of the Workplace Regulations. The Act contains a prohibition against gender reassignment discrimination. However, the Act does not provide for an express legal right for transgender employees to access the single sex toilets or shower facilities that correspond to their gender identity;

172.4 Mr Justice Swift in R on the application of the Good Law Project concluded that an employer would comply with Regulation 20 of the Workplace Regulations if they adopted and applied a policy that female lavatories were available only to ‘biological women’ (and a similar policy regarding male lavatories being available only to ‘biological men’).