Please help me send an email to our Chief Exec who has announced they are ignoring the Supreme Court

[VivaDixie]

I feel I have to do something about this - even just a carefully worded email.

Background: I work in a large well known, well respected white collar organisation. Historically it was very stuffy and male, but in recent decades it has become more inclusive.

This may be v outing but yesterday the very stuffy male Chief Exec announced in an all organisation Teams meeting that - basically - they are ignoring the SC ruling and said that trans colleagues can use whatever toilet and changing room they want. He had all the #bekind #beinclusive vibes. He reminded us all we have to be inclusive for all, clearly women don't come under that umbrella. Made lots of noises about 'we will all have different views on this as its a sensitive subject' bla bla

He made some waffle about how they are reviewing the matter and haven't made any final decisions, but - and this is crucial - that they have already taken external legal advice. I believe the crux of it is that they don't want to change the toilets and want to be seen to be inclusive.

This was one of those teams meetings where you can't put your hand up but there is an anonymous Q&A at the end - I didn't get a chance to put a Q in as I was blindsided and didn't know what to ask without sounding like an idiot.

So I intend to email the Chief Exec office and need to think about what to say. I want to keep it brief but I am thinking of getting the following in:

1. They say they have sought independent legal advice. How has this legal advice aligned with the SC ruling in terms of the fact that allowing trans colleagues to use whatever loo (and more crucially changing rooms) they like has always been but is now confirmed as unlawful
2. They say they are inclusive of all - how does this protect women's rights to safe spaces
3. The toilets are not self contained - in that they have floor to ceiling cubicles but the sinks are outside the cubicles. (Mumsnet - am I right that if you are essentially making these mixed sex then that set up is now unlawful?)

My questions are clunky but I am going to think over the weekend how to articulate this. If anyone has any ideas that would be much appreciated.

Interestingly nobody in the Q&A asked questions about this - the questions are fielded by his PA so I can guarantee that out of an organisation of hundreds that the questions were sent but he told his PA in advance not to put them to him publicly

Could you ask to see their legal advice/impact assessment because you are concerned that the rights of women, with regard to privacy and dignity but also those who are religious and those who have been subjected to male violence previously have not been considered adequately. Religion and sex are both protected characteristics under the equality act and aren’t trumped by the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

Ask about insurance consequences?

I don’t know if yours is the sort of organisation that has clients in the building for meetings and so on , but this might not play well with them. Worth noting?

Another case of 'Supreme Court? who? Oh them!' DIY law-abidingness in high places😠
'We all have different views' - so let's be sensible and just follow the highest court in the land's ruling on this, wouldn't that be a practical solution?

The SC made it perfectly clear that people should use the toilets designated for their sex, not their gender ID.

Building regs make it perfectly clear that separate sex-segregated toilets must be provided for women and for men, as long as their is enough space.
Toilet accommodation: Approved Document T
'Universal' toilets are either an optional extra, or an acceptable alternative IF there is not enough space for single sex toilets.

You are right that a 'universal' unisex toilet is not a rebadged women's or men's toilet - it has to be fully enclosed and contain the handbasin, dryer etc within the same room.
“universal toilet” means toilet facilities which— (a) are provided in a fully enclosed room which contains a water closet and washbasin and hand-drying facilities, and (b) is intended for individual use by persons of either sex.
Toilet accommodation: Approved Document T

If your organisation has just declared that all toilets are now unisex, they can't do that, as they are not building-regs-compliant 'universal' toilets.

But maybe they are leaving the women's and men's as they are, but saying that trans people can take their pick? That's different, but equally unacceptable for different reasons, namely the SC ruling.

I'm sure other posters will have useful suggestions to make, that's the best I can manage.
I'm sorry that you are yet another person having to deal with this kind of dancing round the SC ruling at work!

And ask if the legal department are on board with the company potentially being non-compliant with your insurance.

Ask him what the consequences would be if someone launched a legal challenge re the company's policy of ignoring the law. Suggest it would not go well, company policy does not override the law of the land and could prove to be very costly as the company would lose.

Contact Sex Matters

I think I read on here that encouraging other people to breach the Equality Act is illegal - something like that. Doesn’t that leave him personally vulnerable?

frankly, I’d just leak this to the papers and name and shame, if you can do so and keep anonymity. Which means not asking questions internally first I guess

I always think that a short, focused challenge is better than a long detailed one, and I like the legal/insurance-based ones
[see, I knew other posters would have good suggestions, they always have]

But you can keep the knowledge that Building regs require single sex toilets, and that unisex toilets are something specifically designed as such, not a rebadged women'/men's, tucked behind your ear as something that might come in handy if they appear not to know the ways in which they are not abiding by the law.

A 'concerned 'But mightn't it cause the company legal or reputational problems if we are seen to be flouting a clear ruling of the Supreme Court?' sounds good.

You can practise the innocent 'concerned' look in the mirror over the weekend
Good luck!
edited to say I see you asked about writing an email in your OP, so my 'concerned look' advice is irrelevant for now.
Also something else to tuck behind your ear* along with building regs for possible later use, though
*Metaphorically, unless you are a hare.

All excellent advice here thank you so much everyone - you have all given me some good points to put forward.

@MarieDeGournay yes this is what he has done:
But maybe they are leaving the women's and men's as they are, but saying that trans people can take their pick? That's different, but equally unacceptable for different reasons, namely the SC ruling.

But I think your points about vulnerable and religious women is an excellent one to go in with.

Thank you everyone - this is so helpful

The Workplace (health safety and welfare)Regulations 1992 regulations, require all employers to provide separate toilet facilities for men and women.

Unless each toilet is in a separate room with a lockable door, which must be floor to ceiling and contain its own washbasin, Regulations (20 and 21)

The SC ruling confirms that a man is a biological male and a woman is a biological female.

in short he would be in breach of the Health and safety regulations

I would leave it at, not bother with the rational, just the law.

Some law firms are putting out info saying that it's still lawful to include tw in female single sex spaces, because they think whether the service provider excludes males with the pc of gr from the female space is up to them. They are saying it is lawful to do so, but also lawful not to. There is also the view that they would be causing harrassment on the basis of gr if they stop tw from using the ladies. It is proving difficult to adjust the point of view that they are considering this from.

Presumably the legal advice was of that ilk or vague enough to make your company think they should continue as they are for now.

The ruling did not say in so many words these things would be unlawful. When you think through the logical endpoint of reading "sex" as "biological sex" wherever it appears in the EA then it's clear to me (a non lawyer) that tw have to be excluded from f ss spaces to make them lawful, ie to make it lawful to exclude men. It's also obvious once you consider women as ppl who suffer a detriment from being provided with a "single sex" space which is actually mixed sex.

Karon momoghan on the legal podcast double jeopardy explains it.

I don't know how best to tell your CEO or whether it's wise to. But they need to consider women who need single sex provision as a group who have rights.

With the ehrc statutory guidence still coming, is it actually worth doing anything now?

Yes I want to go with 'less is more' but both of your posts and everyone elses have been so helpful 🙂

I shall practice my puzzled head tilt over the weekend as suggested haha

@Manderleyagain yes I think this is exactly it:

Some law firms are putting out info saying that it's still lawful to include tw in female single sex spaces, because they think whether the service provider excludes males with the pc of gr from the female space is up to them. They are saying it is lawful to do so, but also lawful not to. There is also the view that they would be causing harrassment on the basis of gr if they stop tw from using the ladies. It is proving difficult to adjust the point of view that they are considering this from.

I would think that centreing changing rooms - where people hane to undress in the presence of others (if that's what you've got) would be helpful.

My email would be:

Hi boss

You announced in a meeting yesterday to the team/organisation that in terms of the Supreme Court clarification on the law as relating to provision of single sex spaces [which has been the law for several decades], the company are no longer providing any single sex facilities across the organisation, and that you have had legal advice on this from an external party.

Please can you confirm companywide, that this is indeed the case, in writing, it would really help if every employee knows what the organisational processes, procedures and actual policy is.

Many thanks.

All employers are legally bound to provide single sex toilets, and always have been. Not only is your chief executive flouting the law, but he is not considering the rights and the dignity of his female employees.

Which loo does he use? Go and use it

There is no legal right for people with a GRC to use designated female only facilities, and there never has been. In fact, it is female employees who could taken legal action for sexual harrassment unless the company complies with the law.

Perfect thank you @Shedmistress

This!!

As for their legal advice - if you watch the recording of Akua Reindorf KC & Jo Bartosch's talk that took place in Manchester last week, you'll hear AR say that lots of law firms have been issuing advice on the SC judgment who aren't really qualified to do so. They're just ordinary law firms with no particular expertise in this field but still sticking their oars in.

My guess is that your company's legal advice on this is from the same source - uninformed.

We need some court cases.

He'll have his own private loo.

You might need to spell it out a little but more.

Explain that allowing trans women or trans men to use opposite biological sex facilities the organisation is legally (supreme court ruling) no longer providing any single sex facilities. Is he aware that the organsiation is now left open to legal challenges because women have the right to single sex facilities for changing and toilets in the work place. Has he informed the organisation's insurers.