Employment Tribunal Case to Protect Single-Sex Facilities at Work

[FayeRC]

Dear Mumsnet Members,

I have issued an employment tribunal complaint against NHS England to protect single-sex facilities at work.

A preliminary hearing will be held in early October 2024. I would be very grateful for some urgent gardening support at CrowdJustice. I won't add a link here as it is against Mumsnet rules.

It would be interesting to hear other people's views on legislation around single-sex facilities at WORK. However, I won't be commenting much on this public forum whilst the case is on-going.

Yours faithfully,
Faye Russell-Caldicott / FayeRC

Thank you all, I have been reading through the judgement, feeling a mixture of relief, overwhelm and incredible jubilation.

You are so brave. Well done ❤️

I hope you have the best night's sleep ever @FayeRC - this has rumbled on for so, so long.

Brave woman 💪🏼

Enjoy. So very well deserved. And helps so many women!

And this the icing on the cake surely?

Congratulations @FayeRC !!

I don’t know whether to say well done or thank you - probably both. ❤️

Well done @FayeRC and to your legal team. I have read the judgment - its so incredible for you and for those of us who are sex realist.

You have advanced the cause - money very well invested! I hope you have some way to celebrate. Your kids will be so proud of you.

Congratulations Faye, we all benefit from your courage and determination.
💚💜💚

Litigatioh is draining - mentally, physically, financially. Well done for walking the walk, history will remember you.

Congratulations @FayeRC and thank you for taking the fight on in the first place.

Just seen this - congratulations on seeing this through 👏

Here is a link to the full judgment provided by a firm of solicitors:

https://didlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/ACFrOgAFwh2AfMqBuj1ETDwttJVWcjfk841vxpCGYTRsjWHjjYsa2TVUun2LxUcnWZlfN0UDoxLIa88dO32xRIHGvMimifrGvKy8OeU5M2stzoTGC3wcVHgu0-gZUInr1nSUKC4-o4X6q5iH2IWoaItFGgmFO7YaE2QCSXtMw.pdf

Or you can access it from their website:

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

Congratulations, Faye. What an ordeal this has been for you - and what an achievement.

Congratulations Faye! Brilliant result.

I'm trying to avoid that tired old cliché 'This is a victory for common sense'.

Oh what the heck: This is a victory for common sense!
And for a very courageous and determined woman, of course

Helpful letter you can send to your employers (even anonymously) following this judgment on this thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5529605-consequences-of-ls-v-nhse-england-court-win-discuss-explore-the-detail-of-judgement-what-this-means-for-other-cases-and-institutions

Congratulations and thank you @FayeRC

A well-deserved congratulations and a big thank you @FayeRC

@FayeRC May congratualtions on you win, and all respect to you for having endured what must have been a long and upsetting process.

Just to say, because I didn't make the link(!) that I started a thread based on a newspaper report of you win - but at least caught the attention of those who hadn't been following this thread.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5529873-muslim-woman-in-line-for-payout-over-nhs-trans-toilets-policy

At first I felt disheartened by two complaints around PTSD and religion not succeeding but perhaps it's important to remember those were already included in the main win.

From the judgement: '184. The success of the claimant's complaint of indirect discrimination in relation to sex means that we do not need to proceed to consider her complaints of indirect discrimination on the basis of religious belief and/or disability. This is because we have concluded that the respondent indirectly discriminated against all women by applying the two PCPs (including women who were Muslim and women with PTSD as a result of male sexual violence.'

My toilet report from last month is already out of date 😁
It’s going to be great to be able to put this result in!
I wish they could have considered disability and religion too but then the overall result is so good for health and safety. Thank you for having the bravery and determination to do this.

You’ve given all women of whatever belief, of whatever trauma they’ve experienced, or whatever their background a wonderfully clear judgement saying you only need to be a woman to say no.

You don’t need to be a harmed woman, or believe certain things. Being a woman is enough. That is a gift to all women.

Well done.

My complaint of harassment on the basis of sex and GC belief succeeded: ‘194.12 we cannot conclude that the claimant was ‘hypersensitive’ […] The claimant’s diagnosis of PTSD relating to male sexual violence was particularly salient in reaching this conclusion.’

And obviously, rationally, there is no way to separate, analyse and discuss each individual woman who says no to see if she meets the acceptable criteria of 'diagnosed with sufficient trauma to be allowed to say no without accusations of what essentially means 'silly woman being silly'.

And more than it's possible to separate a nice well intentioned man who wants to be with undressing women, from a not nice, not well intentioned man who wants to use his access for more direct harms than voyeurism and utilising non consenting women as props to his sense of self.

Even with mind melds on every doorway, how on earth do you shade out those lines and justify who gets the yes and who gets the no? How much of any of those differences really exist anyway? What difference do they make - the woman who says no because she doesn't want to and the woman who says no because it's absolutely intolerable, the man who wants to use women's bodies a bit and the man who wants to use them a lot? Where's the ethics in all this?

There just plain has to be separate spaces. With women free to move between women's and mixed sex, and men free to move between men's and mixed sex, dependent on how they feel in themselves at that time and the accessible facility.

Compulsory access of men to non consenting women is obviously just in the bin, that's the stuff of dystopia and nonsense.