Transwoman wins employment discrimination case against NHS for being treated differently from women in changing room

[Clymene]

I thought there was a thread on this but I can't find it. Maybe it was deleted? I shall choose my words very carefully.

The court found that the unnamed employee had been discriminated against because they were asked questions that a woman would not have been about whether they had been undressed in the communal women's changing area.

Judge Davies said: 'A concern about the woman's state of undress in the changing rooms was likely to be connected with the fact that she is a transgender woman.
'This was a communal changing room with a shower cubicle. It did not seem to the Tribunal likely that there would have been a concern about a cisgender woman in a state of undress while changing in such a changing room.
'The Tribunal therefore concluded that [the manager] asked the questions because of a concern that the woman as a transgender woman might be in a state of undress in the female changing room.
There were also several serious allegations against several female co-workers but while the Trust accepts these incidents happened, no perpetrators were ever identified.

There were a number of other complaints but they were dismissed by the Court.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11027471/Trans-NHS-worker-wins-discrimination-case-confronted-underwear.html

I am sure I'm not alone in finding this story very disturbing.

I note that none of our usual anti-women posters have turned up to tell us how wrong and fascist we are on this!

This is like if you had to work with Yaniv and actually put up with and accommodated everything and then held a meeting after reports of tampon talk and harassment and in that meeting said “but what would you even do w a tampon” and got called discriminatory because no one would ask a woman that. It’s literally that level of absurd chaos.

I find this horribly disturbing as any male can sue for being excluded from womens spaces.he should have been prosecuted for indecent exposure and sexual harassment . I am feeling like screaming , crying and shaking at the injustice of it.

There seems to be an assumption that the people having the alleged conversation were women. Multiple assumptions that most of the people around the claimant, supportive or otherwise, were women. How could anyone know this? Why would the judge go along with this assumption?

But if it finds for the transwoman on the use of women's single-sex spaces - then yes; I will throw money at this judgement too, because it is wrong, and fails to take into account women's rights according to the Equality Act 2010 whereby there are single-sex exceptions, and males - all males, including those males with a GRC - can be legally excluded. Yes, even males with a GRC.

The problem seems to be that the TW had been given permission to use the space despite the women having raised concerns at the EDI training. So whilst the hospital would have been entitled to make use of the SSEs they chose not to.

I’ve spent 15 years getting changed in nhs hospital changing rooms, I’ve never once had to take my knickers off. You take your own clothes off, put your uniform on. 🤷‍♀️

Because it wasn’t disputed. The tribunal is there to decide areas of dispute.

In my experience NHS changing room provision is less than ideal, in fact very poor generally. In my department currently (about 80 people working there, clinical but not a ward) our women's changing area is probably about 10 x 5 with two loos and a shower room which has a door and a small ante-space with a bench and hanging rail for towels and clothes outside the actual shower.
There are lots of lockers along the long side and cost hooks either end. Yesterday when I entered there were six other women in there already. It is hard to weave your way through without touching anyone, to get at your locker and find a bit of floor space to drop your bag and clothes on whilst changing. I would be outraged if a man came in especially if it was a naked one. That swinging dick would literally be in your face as you bent down to put shoes on etc. And if the dick owner was headed for the private shower area he would have to walk through everyone, we'd be falling over to get out of the way.

Theatres probably have the best changing rooms due to the need to accommodate a lot of staff who all need to out in scrubs. It's still pretty small and cramped, lots of lockers and fairly narrow so again someone walking through would cause people to need to get out of the way.

I have never seen anyone naked in our rooms - if we need to change underwear for some reason then I think users do as I would do and go into the private shower room.

On one of the wards I worked in the "changing area" was a short stretch of corridor, lockers to the left and coat hooks to the right and the SINGLE loo for all staff at the end. That's female and male staff, physios, Drs, Consultants who has their offices that end of the ward. Best in mind it is hospital policy not to travel to or from work in uniform so changing is the rule.
Sometimes whilst changing you would hear someone outside pressing the buttons in the key lock and have time to put a hand in the lock and prevent it opening. Sometimes one would be too late hence a couple of occasions when one of the consultants got a full frontal in my underwear as I was reaching for the door as it opened. It wouldn't be possible to walk past someone without that person hugging the wall to allow them to pass. The male nurses put their coats in there and used the lockers but out of respect to the rest of the female staff at start and finish of the shift would change in a little used patient shower at the end of the ward.

In short people are respectful and make accommodations but it would be very hard to accommodate the person in this case.
The NHS is laying itself open to lots of complaints from female staff if they dare raise them as naked swinging dicks will be unwelcome and difficult to escape.

I also think the judge was wrong comparing to "cis" women regarding changing their underwear. I have NEVER seen any of my colleagues naked or without underwear. If someone needs to change for any reason clearly we all choose to do this privately in a loo or shower area. It is not comparable to a swimming pool changing room where necessarily a full strip down is expected.

The overheard conversation and the note in the locker weren't disputed, either, despite that being no evidence that they happened.

I appreciate that the tribunal was not about whether or not the others involved were women. I'm pointing out the nonsense.

Women have the legal right to object to the presence of a man in a space that is used by two or more people at the same time; see subsection 6 of the single sex exceptions in the Equality Act (Schedule 3, section 27). This means any single sex space designated for females; ie: toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards etc.

So no, men who claim they are women have no legal right to use those facilities since the EA 2010 specifies that women can object. If this were not the case the law would not specify any right to object.

Here are the exceptions:

Single-sex services
27(1)A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to sex discrimination, by providing a service only to persons of one sex if—
(a)any of the conditions in sub-paragraphs (2) to (7) is satisfied, and
(b)the limited provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(2)The condition is that only persons of that sex have need of the service.
(3)The condition is that—
(a)the service is also provided jointly for persons of both sexes, and
(b)the service would be insufficiently effective were it only to be provided jointly.
(4)The condition is that—
(a)a joint service for persons of both sexes would be less effective, and
(b)the extent to which the service is required by persons of each sex makes it not reasonably practicable to provide separate services.
(5)The condition is that the service is provided at a place which is, or is part of—
(a)a hospital, or
(b)another establishment for persons requiring special care, supervision or attention.
(6)The condition is that—
(a)the service is provided for, or is likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time, and
(b)the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex.
(7)The condition is that—
(a)there is likely to be physical contact between a person (A) to whom the service is provided and another person (B), and
(b)B might reasonably object if A were not of the same sex as B.
(8)This paragraph applies to a person exercising a public function in relation to the provision of a service as it applies to the person providing the service.

It is. And reminded me exactly of Yaniv. Extreme disordered thinking and behaviour being given endless houseroom out of peoples fear that has been deliberately trained into them.

So no, men who claim they are women have no legal right to use those facilities since the EA 2010 specifies that women can object. If this were not the case the law would not specify any right to object

I think though that the law is permissive in that it allows a service to make use of the exceptions if it is a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim. The hospital clearly didn’t make this assessment in this case because they gave the TW permission to use the changing room.

Presumably it would have been open to the women using that changing room to bring a case against the hospital for sex discrimination or an attempt to force the hospital to use the single sex exceptions. But isn’t that what the prison case attempted to do and failed? I don’t think there is much in the way of case law on this issue atm. The case against the Brighton rape crisis centre will be interesting in terms of whether a service is obliged to offer a single-sex option.

Good grief! So not only is nothing done about indecent exposure, if women aren't sufficiently nice after the incident then it's discriminatory. I mean, wow! You'd think both the NHS and tribunals would be a bit more careful after all the horrific abuse incidents in hospitals and GP surgeries etc, I don't think a week goes past without something new.

Extraordinary utterly extraordinary.

As a musician I've been in countless situations of having to get changed in front of males. Almost always I go into the loo to do it.

It's uncomfortable for most females to take your top and/or bottoms of in front of males, even if your underwear stays on.

I don't understand this ruling at all, it's completely from the wrong position and it's plain old sex discrimination. I hope they can appeal.

The problem seems to be that the TW had been given permission to use the space despite the women having raised concerns at the EDI training. So whilst the hospital would have been entitled to make use of the SSEs they chose not to.

But..but...but...

This was the women's changing room, so the hospital had made use of the single sex exemptions, but then gave a male person permission to be there. I can't see how that is supposed to work.

Blimey that summary!

And yet this person wins a tribunal. Seems TW has a special pass to behave unprofessionally and inappropriately.

Wonder how far anyone else would get with this behaviour?

From the Irish Times story She said on one occasion, the managing director “picked her up in his arms and carried her from the warehouse to the office despite her requests that she be put down”. Ms Whelan said that on a second occasion he “slapped [her] on the bottom as she leaned over a desk”. Another colleague gave evidence of witnessing both incidents, though the managing director swore on oath that neither took place.

So a man's denial of wrongdoing outweighs a woman's evidence, even when she is backed by an eyewitness.

There we have it.

Interesting that a thread on AIBU called ‘Did this happen to a lot of us when we were younger?’ had hundreds of posts on the sexual inappropriate behaviour (including flashing and indecent exposure) women witnessed as children, teens and young adults at the hands of men (MN deleted the post
3 days ago). We now have a situation where a TW is legally permitted expose their genitalia and women have to accept this as their new normal.

If they had made use of the single sex exceptions they would not have invited a male to use a female space. I am assuming they didn't have a clear policy stating that they had made an assessment that female people need a separate sex space for privacy and that all males (including those males that identify as women) where not permitted to use those spaces. A clear policy is what is needed in this day and age when women's boundaries are increasingly being trampled on. The hospital got themselves into this mess by not being clear. Many NHS hospital trusts are playing the same game. They have policies of same "gender" facilities (allowing males who claim not to be men on to single sex-wards etc.) Staff who complain are told to be quiet or sent on stupid training courses to re-educate them out of their bigoted views.

The NHS are captured and it may be that they are not compliant with the EA, but until there is some case law who knows. In the mean time any woman who gets cross about sharing an intimate space with a male person will be at risk of being accused of transphobia and bigotry and males will have the freedom to expose themselves without the risk of being prosecuted. It's sorry state of affairs.

They deleted it? I know deletion messages are vague nowadays, so no help, but did you form an impression of what the actual problem was?

If they had made use of the single sex exceptions they would not have invited a male to use a female space.

But how is "a female space" not by definition a manifestation of the SSEs?

Here's the judgement:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62cff0578fa8f50bfafb091d/VvvSheffieldTeachinggHospitalsNHSSFoundationTrustt1806836-2020_Others.pdf

Interesting reading. Clearly the trust absolutely bent over backwards to support this employee.

The employee sounds like an absolute nightmare. I guess they'll be thinking twice about hiring a trans person ever again.

@Datun - no obvious problems or issues with the post. There were literally hundreds and hundreds of posts about womens lived experiences in their younger years of flashing, indecent exposure, dick pics, catcalling, being touched up in nightclubs, being offered lifts home or being asked on dates by older men while wearing a school uniform. All perpetrators were men, all victims were women. Sad that we now find ourselves in a situation where men are legally allowed to do as they please and women, once again, are disregarded. Where is the evolution of humankind and society progression when this is not only tolerated but being made illegal to challenge!!

Sorry I posted that on the wrong thread.