Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Consequences of ls v NHSE England court win, discuss & explore the detail of judgement, what this means for other cases and institutions

111 replies

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 14/05/2026 09:15

https://didlaw.com/ls-v-nhse-england

Don't want valuable discussion of what this means and the detail of the case judgement to get lost in the other (very valid) threads.

Yesterdays case feels quote significant, would like to explore what it means!

LS v NHSE England - Didlaw

Didlaw can reveal that the Claimant in the above case, heard in Leeds ET for 6 days from 23 March 2026 has been successful in her discrimination claims against NHS England. The ET upheld the following claims: The claims:  The Claimant is employed by NH...

https://didlaw.com/ls-v-nhse-england

OP posts:
MyAutumnCrow · 14/05/2026 10:15

usernameinserthere · 14/05/2026 09:51

The impact of this judgment is that every woman in UK has rights to single sex spaces at work for toilets and changing rooms (where required for work purposes).

Two higher court judgments combined bind all employers in the UK (inc NI where EA doesn’t apply) to ensure that workplace toilets, showers and changing rooms are for women only. Not for men who identity as women.

Fail to do this and you are discriminating against women.

I think I’ll do a draft letter people can use to send to their employers.

Please, please draft the letter.

My council (CEO and Leader) needs to see tailored version of it. ‘Will you please confirm that …’ sort of thing. I know one of the legal team there and I think they’d welcome it, because a lot of the councillors in charge ain’t listening.

MassiveWordSalad · 14/05/2026 10:13

We need to remember, welcome as the judgement is, that it is not binding in law as a tribunal appeal would be. However, hopefully it will encourage other employers not to FAFO.

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 14/05/2026 10:13

Very good points about the policing had not spotted that properly!!

OP posts:
MrsOvertonsWindow · 14/05/2026 10:07

Hopefully this will be important:
“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.”

The NHS, civil service, universities and all larger business should find it simple to offer some mixed sex spaces for those wishing to share with the opposite sex while maintaining single sex spaces for men and women, making it part of their employee policy that single sex changing / toilets must not be used by the opposite sex.

MarieDeGournay · 14/05/2026 10:02

Two things from the judgement that stand out to me are:
'policing' toilets - just because some people may not obey a rule is not an excuse not to have one, and to make it company policy
[something we've pointed out on this thread many times]
and
'proportionality' in terms of how much has to be done to reach the legitimate aim of not discriminating against a protected group.

I've only skimmed through the judgment, but I think it is a very important statement of The law rather than Stonewall Law.

Pingponghavoc · 14/05/2026 10:00

I hope it means the end of court cases. Especially against state funded organisations like NHS and councils.

crosstalk · 14/05/2026 09:57

Do you think Ms Phillipson is waiting for more court cases to show the way rather than publish the government's guidance?

usernameinserthere · 14/05/2026 09:51

The impact of this judgment is that every woman in UK has rights to single sex spaces at work for toilets and changing rooms (where required for work purposes).

Two higher court judgments combined bind all employers in the UK (inc NI where EA doesn’t apply) to ensure that workplace toilets, showers and changing rooms are for women only. Not for men who identity as women.

Fail to do this and you are discriminating against women.

I think I’ll do a draft letter people can use to send to their employers.

Slothtoes · 14/05/2026 09:47

Huzzah! Many congratulations to the brave claimant and to her excellent legal team Flowers What a cheering read. Thank you OP.

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 14/05/2026 09:37

2 - NHS England admitted in court that women are disadvantaged by this kind of policy.

They did not argue that women were being silly, hateful or irrational for objecting to males in female-only spaces. They accepted that allowing trans women into women’s facilities puts women, Muslim women and women with PTSD from male violence at a particular disadvantage.

They knew women were disadvantaged, but pushed ahead anyway

Any more?

OP posts:
SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 14/05/2026 09:29

1 - GLP fuck up again - their failed case now seems to be helping the very argument they were trying to defeat. GLP challenged the EHRC’s post-Supreme Court position on single-sex spaces, lost, and the High Court confirmed that employers can comply with workplace toilet rules by providing female facilities for biological women and male facilities for biological men. That judgment has now been quoted in LS v NHS England to support the point that there is no legal right for a trans-identifying male employee to use women’s facilities.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread