Workplace toilets: know your rights

[LadyBracknellsHandbagg]

Helen Joyce posted this, apologies if this has already been posted, but if not, it could be useful to those of you who work in organisations who appear to be ignorant of the law.

sex-matters.org/posts/publications/workplace-toilets-know-your-rights/

Thanks, I'll use this in the anonymous question I'm going to pose in an all-company webinar next week. I'm going to ask whether my company is going to start complying with the law. A while ago we had an external consultant come in and tell us people should use the toilets that align with their gender identity. Since the supreme court ruling the only comms have been along the lines of 'we stand together with trans people'. Not a mention of women.

I hope it will help. It beggars belief that so many employers think they can just ignore the law, I’m guessing they haven’t considered being taken to an employment tribunal, but they really should.

My work is having a meeting to discuss implications of the ruling with the women's group next week (which was an afterthought of course, after their proposal to only consult the LGBT+ network was called out)... Most are captured, I'm fairly certain my eyes will roll right out of my head listening to the garbage that will be spoken, but thanks for sharing this, I will keep it handy on the day!

The Translucent statement from 2023, actually says that transwomen need both:

Unisex facilities are needed to ensure the health and safety of trans women who require them along with non-binary people, and Female toilets are needed to ensure the safety of both cisgender and trans women who need the provision of gender-assigned facilities that are not used by cis men. Where there is a Unisex toilet, a female toilet is also needed in the same locality, and visa versa.
Unlike those Gender Critical organisations, we do not believe that the rights of one demographic should be considered greater than another, and where there is a genuine overlap, both groups need a fair and safe solution. So to be clear, our position is that trans women are never subjected to any blanket bans or segregation and they must have the choice of whichever toilet is their individual preference. Trans & cis women and those non binary need the option of both Single Sex and Unisex toilets to ensure they have access to the one they are happy to use. We know that those Gender Critical will always have issue with any arrangement that allows trans women to use female spaces and they are never going to accept any arrangement we propose, but the law does not support their position and they have no legal right to harass or try to prevent trans women using any toilet facility. There may not be a solution that resolves every possible issue, but we believe our position provides for spaces that meet the needs of all those transgender whilst not impacting on any understandable claims of safety that women need in safeguarding from cis male predators.

Oops wrong toilet thread! Obviously the info in my post above is now obsolete but it does show what was wanted by organisations.

Priorlake · Today 09:10

Thanks, I'll use this in the anonymous question I'm going to pose in an all-company webinar next week.

I think you're very brave! I wish you all the best and sincerely hope that I don't read about you in the Telegraph in a short while!

The only part of the guidance there I'd have reservations about is the suggestion of bringing in your union - so many of them are captured

I was trying to find out an estimate of the cost of installing gender neutral toilets in addition to women's, men's and disabled toilets in an existing public building - cost doesn't seem to be taken into consideration in the call for 'thirds spaces' [actually fourth - the disabled toilet is the third space]. I didn't succeed -'a lot more than originally costed' would be my guess! - but I came across this commercial website:
Unisex washrooms, gender-neutral bathrooms, gender-inclusive, mixed-sex or all-gender toilets.

This company is already using the SC ruling to promote installing unisex facilities - you have to admire their opportunism, somebody in Sales is going to be Employer of the Month for spotting that angle
I'm a bit confused about the relevant UK law/building regs, but my understanding is that under building regs as amended in 2024, separate single-sex toilets are mandatory, not optional, as long as there is sufficient space

T1.—(1) Toilet accommodation in buildings other than dwellings—
(a)must consist of—
(i)reasonable provision for male and female single-sex toilets,

The only justification for only installing unisex toilets is if there is insufficient space for single sex toilets, or if they are in addition to the required single-sex toilets
The Building Regulations 2010

So when a company promotes installing only unisex facilities because they are more convenient, inclusive, economical, etc etc., are they not encouraging contravention of T1 of Building Regs ?

They are breaking statutory Health and Safety laws from 1974 and most likely 1992. That whole article is a mess. It really isn’t keeping children safe.

All those toilets will be enclosed, mix sex and private. It’s a health and safety fail.

Schools are subject to The School Premises (England) 2012 or The Education (Independent School Standards)
Regulations 2014. Clearly toilet door gaps will enable schools satisfy the statutory requirements in the The Health
and Safety at Work Act (1974), Equality Act 2010, Supporting pupils at school with medical conditions (December
2015) and Keeping Children Safe in Education (2024).

The 2010 building regs don’t apply to Education but could arguably if used by the general public I think.

Schools are under a few different design briefs from the DfE that are actually non- statutory though ‘Employers requirements’ sounds like they are. It actually asks whether toilets are going to be ‘unisex or single sex’ in the school specific brief from the DfE.

They need to sort it out.

This is really helpful thanks. I work for the civil service and notice that a male is still using the women’s toilets.. I emailed SEEN but not sure if we have any updated guidance yet. We actually have gender neutral toilets so no excuse really!

I better explain I am not a lawyer but I have had quite a lot of communication with the Department of Education discussing how the floor-to-door gap on toilets is there for safety to enable the occupant in an emergency situation (heart attacks, seizures, hypos, strokes, assaults, mental health crises) to be seen and rescued in time. Some of this can be related back to a general workplace.

When replying to the FOI request on toilet door gap safety and medical conditions, the DfE said, ‘Schools are
responsible for the health, safety and welfare of pupils (School Premises Regulations/Independent School Standards)
and this would include supporting pupils with additional needs. Where a pupil has a special requirement, suitable toilets must be provided to meet that need under the School Premises Regulations/Independent
School Standards: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/410294/Adviceonstandardsforschool_premises.pdf (page 8).’
‘In terms of health and safety in schools, all schools must adhere to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The employer in a school must take reasonable steps to ensure that staff and pupils are not exposed to risks to their health and safety.
The employer is required to ensure that a risk assessment is conducted and measures put in place to minimise any known risk. Employers, school staff and others also have a duty under common law to take care of pupils in the same way that a prudent parent would.
The employer in a school will vary depending on the type of school. For community, voluntary controlled, community special, and maintained nursery schools this is the local authority. For foundation schools, foundation
special schools and voluntary aided schools the employer is the governing board. For academies and free schools,
the employer is the governing board or academy trust and the proprietor is the employer in independent schools.
Schools must have a health and safety policy in place which the headteacher is responsible for implementing.
Furthermore, the department’s statutory guidance ‘Supporting Pupils with Medical Conditions at School’
(https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/supporting-pupils-at-school-with-medical-conditions--3) makes it
clear to schools what is expected of them in taking reasonable steps to fulfil their legal obligations in relation to
toilet facilities.
Any concerns about a school’s procedures should be raised directly with the school in question in the first instance
as schools are autonomous institutions run by a governing body, with day-to-day operational decisions such as
access to toilets during lessons, managed by the headteacher.’

Basically, single sex designs are the only ones with door gaps. So they are the safest.

Enclosed, private, mix sex spaces can also be abused. I discussed the problem with the DfE on sexual assaults too. Which is when the DfE replied about the statutory ‘Keeping children safe in education’ document.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm a bit worried that the read across from the Equality Act to the Workplace Regs isn't as straightforward as is being suggested there. I think it's arguable that it should be, as otherwise you'd get absurdities in circumstances where facilities are used by both customers and staff, and the same person would be expected to use different facilities on their day off. But if they've got a GRC, what's the legal justification for assuming that the Workplace Regs don't apply according to their legal sex rather than their birth sex, given the bit in the GRA about their acquired gender applying for all legal purposes?

Very useful, thanks very much as I will be using this today for my very captured taxpayer funded NHS trust.

Document T (2024) was put in place last year for public toilets including offices.
This Approved Document provides technical guidance on the design and layout of universal toilets, ambulant toilets and toilet cubicles requirements in Part T to the Building Regulations.
Approved Document T applies to new buildings other than dwellings and buildings undergoing a material change of use.

Its states that you should have single sex designs if there’s enough space (ie not like a small cafe with one loo).

What it could say (but doesn’t clarify) is that the single sex designs can have door gaps for safety. It also says the universal toilet design can be used for single sex toilets - but used only for one sex. What is should say (and this should be changed in my opinion) that this design should have door gaps for safety too.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/toilet-accommodation-approved-document-t

edit to say the HSE have said to me that single sex toilets can have door gaps but the mixed sex toilets can’t.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/toilet-accommodation-approved-document-t

This link takes you to Document T

Oh - now the link gets shown! Twice! 😂

I don't think the SC ruling needs to be carried across to other laws and regulations, once you remember that the EA applies to every situation in addition to any other law or regulation.

Sex segregation is illegal discrimination, unless it's a proportionate means to a legitimate end. Such as obeying workplace regulations about toilets.

But this breaks down if some opposite sex are allowed in: thus there's a breach of sex discrimination law.

Whether it's against workplace regulations is a separate matter. Employers are only required to provide the facility not police it. Though I'd argue it was always a breach to tell employees to use whatever they prefer, rather than having a 'bona fide transwomen only' rule (yes, it's nonsense, but it would be in the spirit of previous readings of the law).

TakingMyChancesWithTheRabbits · Today 03:25

The Supreme Court decision says that women / men - female / male mean just that and this applies to single sex spaces. I'm pretty sure that the EHRC interim guidance says that, too.

Happy to be corrected.

Definitely not a lawyer, but my thinking is that the workplace regs are from 1992, which predates the GRA, so there was only one type of woman back then.