[From previous thread, p40]
"... To succeed surely NC will focus on proving the harassment and principle of why single spaces are needed, rather than relying on the old law which others argue is out of date? For example historically the law allowed people to own slaves, and that was changed when social values rightly moved on. Or am I missing something?"
@KnottyAuty - I don't think old laws go out of date. They are either repealed or amended by Parliament, or they are clarified by judicial interpretation (ie in cases of lack of clarity the courts say what Parliament must have meant by the words they used).
AIUI the 1992 Workplace Regulations mandatory requirement for employers to provide separate changing rooms (and toilets and washing facilities) for men and women has not been repealed, amended or clarified, so the requirement still applies.
Now there may be an argument around what the terms "men" and "women" mean in the context of the regulations, but I don't think anybody has legally argued that anywhere yet. (Although the pending Supreme court decision in the FWS case might help to clarify what the terms mean).
I think I am a bit surprised that NC has not mentioned the workplace regs so far, but I presume she will in her summing up/closing argument.
(By the way - and not a criticism of you - but I'm reminded of the poster in a previous thread who complained to her HR dept that their EDI training was wrong in law and was told by HR something like: "The law is out of date. We're ahead of the law and waiting for it to catch up"!!! 😀 A good example of why you should never trust legal advice from a policeman or a HR bod!)