Very clear article on legal position for retailers and single sex facilities

[ArabellaScott]

https://www.theretailbulletin.com/retail-solutions/legal-do-retailers-have-to-provide-single-sex-toilets-and-changing-rooms-for-their-customers-and-staff-19-05-2025/

Many will find this instructive.

Lays out legal position, risks, and potential ways to approach the issues, in neutral and clear languagge.

Tried to last year. They said unless I or my family had been injured or assaulted personally and then could prove it was due to design change, then they couldn’t help. They were going to send me a form in case it happened for the future (!!)

I have enough evidence I think, particularly for schools, but it involves other people’s children.

Indeed they haven't. I've not heard anything about the class action for detransitioners which I know a number of law firms were touting for cases some while ago.
But this seems like such easy pickings for lawyers. All the sound and fury and foolish pronouncements from senior managers in companies, the NHS and charities. All looking to flout a judgment from the Supreme Court.
They're walking into some serious compensation claims with their mouths wide open - the lawyers will have a field day 😂

Agree with the comments about no win no fee lawyers. It’s like we are telling you as clearly as we can - if you don’t listen it’s on you.

Meanwhile, they are quietly licking their lips & ordering Chianti & Fava beans.

Thanks for the link. I used to work for River Island and have heard from friends who still work there that they have been told by the high ups that they are to say that the changing rooms are gender neutral. Just sent some of them the link. They have separate men’s and women’s departments but think they just have “changing rooms” above the fitting rooms. Would that mean that they are breaking the law? The shops have womenswear and menswear signs on them.

@Keeptoiletssafe There is something that has been bugging me since I've been reading your posts. At one point I was Fire Marshall at work, which meant I was last one out on my floor in the event of an alarm. My duties included checking all rooms had been evacuated. For rows of toilets with gaps it is easy to do a quick visual check under the doors. For floor to ceiling cubicles each door is going to have to be opened to check there is no-one behind it. That is going to take a bit longer, in a situation where every second counts. Is this an issue or am I being over anxious? Do the doors ever lock shut by accident, with no-one in the cubicle?

Another excellent point that reveals issues with doors that don't have a gap.

When you say 'gender neutral' do you mean 'unisex'? How is it labelled? Because as far as i'm aware a unisex facility has to have not only fully lockable enclosed units, but needs also to have the washbasin within it. Communal basins are not acceptable.

If they have images which are symbolic of male ansd female then they are determined to be single sex. Anything which is representative and commonly understood to relate to one sex or the other.

If you do thorough risk assessments and equality and impact assessments, single sex designs with door gaps will always be safer. For staff and customers

Maybe you've already considered this point, but there's one more reason the design on the right is more of a problem for your illustration scenario than a single enclosed toilet in a café or whatever.

I can imagine some people saying "well, if you can have one in a café, why not six?"

An answer is - if there's only one, one being occupied for a prolonged period has a reasonable chance of being noticed fairly soon by someone waiting for it.

If there's multiple, it could go unnoticed far longer. There's no reason for any customer passing through to investigate one locked cubicle out of six.

The same argument would extend to having 2 sexed enclosed toilets in a café rather than two unisex. The split maintains traffic to both, prompting investigation.

Yes, that's why the images on the walls inside the area are misleading - it looks like wall decoration (a black and white arty photo of a female model). Outside the fitting area the signage says ' Fitting Rooms'. There are no 'Women' signs or emblems.

However the wall image/photo of a woman leads you to think the area is for women only.

They need to be labelled as unisex not 'gender neutral'; and if they are unisex they need to have fully lockable doors - not curtains.

No you are not being over anxious. I think it’s a problem. I used to do checks when I was a teacher. We had a target of 5 minutes to get all the children out. I could do a check of the girls or boys loos in seconds.

The worst are a row of cubicles that have doors that are hung so that they rest in the closed position. You have to open each door to check. If the door doesn’t open there is a way of opening them up from the outside outwards (it’s a retrospective safety measure because a body prevents the door opening) but that takes time. You may have to go and get a special key or know how to take the door off. You could spend vital time doing all this and there may not even be anyone in the cubicle. There is also the problem that deaf people may not know an alarm is going off. There needs to be a visual alarm not only in each communal area in front of the cubicles but in each cubicle as well.

Yes, deaf people would be one of the reasons for checking each cubicle. I agree, each cubicle would need a visual alarm. Workplaces are going to need a policy on this for Fire Marshalls. It's not the same as a locked work room, because they are locked when people leave the room not when they are in it. If I couldn't check behind a locked toilet door I would tell the Fire Brigade, but then you are maybe asking a fire fighter to risk their life for a possibly non-existent person

Excellent article, thank you. And agree, this is the way to go: to dump responsibility back on retailers and employers. You've been told; your problem if you want to be sued.

For women who want to clean up: start collecting the gender neutral with no single sex provision evidence, plus the heavily biased bull put out that announced anti women prejudice. The bank is open.

I find it beyond depressing the apologetic, er, the SC found it's a legitimate right to permit women privacy, dignity, decency and the right to get their clothes off without a random man enjoying spectating... I'm getting beyond being able to be nice about this. Particularly from those who'd bore on to Olympic standard about they really do believe in it being impossible to know anybody's sex at the same time as burbling heavy anti women sentiment.

Great article. Really sensible, very practical and hopefully will be put into practice (giving you a Hard Stare M&S)

Yes that’s why a singular unisex toilet in a busy cafe is less of a problem as it would be much more likely that anything happening in it would be more obvious. But any help will be retrospective - there’s no prevention.

It really is better to have the door gaps if possible to make sure the occupant (s) are ok.

I think you are right with a female and a male universal style cubicle too. That would fit with Document T too.