EHRC Section 23 Orders - to help organisations comply with EA2010

[BellaAmorosa]

I had never heard of these Orders. Could be a method of enforcing equality law compliance without the expense of going to court.

They say:
We are a prescribed whistleblowing organisation, so if an employee has information that their employer is breaching equality law they can report their concerns to us.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/blogs/using-section-23-agreements-help-organisations-improve-their-approach-equality?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=Orlo

I've skimread and so far I'm not sure if their remit covers all equality legislation or just the EA2010. The language suggests yes in some places, but I haven't found anything that says so in terms. But still, could help a lot of women who are having issues at work.

cheeky bump

Thank you Bella, this is potentially very helpful!

I do hope so. So many threads on this board are concerned with policies or problems in the workplace (pronouns, toilets, training courses, etc). Basically all you have to do is provide credible evidence of possible breaches of EA2010 and the EHRC take it from there. Much less daunting than a Tribunal and you don't have to take on your own HR department personally or put your head above the parapet (unless it's such a small workforce that you would out yourself anyway). More people need to know about this route to fairness.

I wonder if this sort of thing might be tackled by a section 23 order - female changing room marked female but actually mixed sex, Pure Gym insisting that changing rooms are single sex even though they are "gender-matched".

twitter.com/kathrynhall_/status/1622299586445328385

Very interesting

This is also interesting:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11708131/Gender-neutral-toilet-favourable-men-says-judge.html

IANAL, but could it be generally indirect sex discrimination to NOT provide single sexual facilities as failure to do so impacts women more than men?

ooh. Thanks OP

IANAL either, but my guess would be yes - indirect discrimination. Another judgment - in the Employment Appeal Tribunal - Earl Shilton Town Council v Miss K Miller found that there was direct sex discrimination because of women having to use mixed sex toilets which meant they had to pass urinals.
I'd love someone to contact the EHRC about all those theatres and museums and galleries etc changing their toilet provision from single sex to mixed sex.

Ha! It's the same case!
😂😂