University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust: first to comply with the law?

[MyAmpleSheep]

Is this the first NHS domino to fall?

According to a poster on the UK Trans reddit, UHB has conceded that it must comply with FWS, and that single-sex staff facilities are segregated by biological sex.

Transcribing a communication with an employee there:

"This is not a Trust policy or decision, the Trust is implementing the law....

The Supreme Court ruling is a declaration of the existing law under the Equality Act 2010 and how it should operate. Every person, employer and public organisation has a duty to comply with the Act like any other law...
.
We have consulted with legal experts on the risks of non-compliance with the ruling and have acted accordingly...
.
The EHRC guidance and statutory code of practice does not impose legal obligations on the organisation- only the courts and tribunals can do this, and as such our legal obligations were effective immediately following the ruling of the Supreme Court."

For some reason, I am put in mind of "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

We don’t really want to ensure women’s safety and dignity but the law is forcing us to.

Every person, employer and public organisation has a duty to comply with the Act like any other law...

We have consulted with legal experts on the risks of non-compliance with the ruling and have acted accordingly...

Controlled durgs, Paying wages...

Some staff should not be employed in management position at all....

Would like to think that they are just trying to manage the potential backlash from the TRA lobby whilst reinstating women's rights and protections, but suspect you are more right in your interpretation!!

Hurray for that. May all the others see the light and follow quickly.

One point though: surely individuals are not duty bearers under the Act? I, as a private person, do not have to obey it. It's organisations, public bodies, companies etc that do.

The cynic in me wonders if they’ve been threatened with an employment tribunal?

I hope you are right.

It's great news that they are going to follow the law, but the message feels a bit like 'we tried very hard to see if we could get away with continuing to break it...'

If you provide goods or services to others you can be sued for discrimination and have a ("small" d) duty to follow the law.

The public bodies who are tax funded also have a duty to follow the law and have their staff follow the law.
Staff (policy makers) in carrying out their role have specific ("small" d) duties to assess their choices against the PC listed in section 149 so "Duty" is also the Public Sector Equality Duty which include all persons in the Trusts wider "community" (not just staff).

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/149

149Public sector equality duty
(1)A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to—
(a)eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act;
(b)advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it;
(c)foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.
(2)A person who is not a public authority but who exercises public functions must, in the exercise of those functions, have due regard to the matters mentioned in subsection (1).
(3)Having due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to—
(a)remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic;
(b)take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it;
(c)encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low.
(4)The steps involved in meeting the needs of disabled persons that are different from the needs of persons who are not disabled include, in particular, steps to take account of disabled persons' disabilities.
(5)Having due regard to the need to foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to—
(a)tackle prejudice, and
(b)promote understanding.
(6)Compliance with the duties in this section may involve treating some persons more favourably than others; but that is not to be taken as permitting conduct that would otherwise be prohibited by or under this Act.
(7)The relevant protected characteristics are—

• age;
• disability;
• gender reassignment;
• pregnancy and maternity;
• race;
• religion or belief;
• sex;
• sexual orientation.

(8)A reference to conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act includes a reference to— (a)a breach of an equality clause or rule; (b)a breach of a non-discrimination rule. (9)Schedule 18 (exceptions) has effect.

I wonder what drove them to go first? But they are the beginning of all trusts having a realisation that complying with the law is probably for the best I would think

Id have thought the risk of a double whammy case is considerable in Birmingham.

My thought was that Birmingham has a higher rate of religious considerations than other cities and therefore is more at risk of getting caught out for religious discrimination rather than merely sex discrimination.

Changing rooms is the "easy" bit.

They will also have to make it clear that same sex care is same sex care so will have to finish the what happens next blank page in their processes if someone asks for same sex care.

Plus will have to rip up their trans care policy and offer private rooms to the men and women who would have been placed on the open multi-bed other sexes ward.

And as important get a proper IT system which has sex and gender ( if they plan to record gender) so that the medical records are clear and can be reviewed by staff who have never met the person

Single sex provision is likely to be a more sensitive subject if you have a lot of staff and patients who request it on the basis of religious grounds and it's going to be a lot harder to fight a Sandie Peggie style case if one arise because you can throw Chinese whispers about bacon sandwiches and accusations of racist jokes around to smear your claimants.

We have consulted with legal experts on the risks of non-compliance with the ruling

What the fuck? They actually thought about not doing it??

Id have thought using eyes and ears would be cover a lot of the admin considerations on this TBF....

In some ways it’s not a bad thing that they said this out loud - demonstrating that the law is, in fact, the law and has to be followed or there are consequences.

No need for private rooms just because a person claims a cross-sex identity, though. Allocation of those scarce resources should always be on the basis of clinical need.

Well done that Trust though. I suppose. See it through and get back to healing the sick.

I don't give a shit how they justify it, as long as they do it.

All the justification they provide is exactly how I argued that my own organisation had to follow the law. When the other side is using emotional manipulation, its useful to be able to point to facts.

True but in most policy the punishment for a woman asking why the man is on the ward was moving a woman off the ward and placing her on her own .....

(...... solitary confinement as a regular punishmet in a prison is not allowed)

Did not know that. Thanks.

This. I was coming to post the same.

Birmingham’s ethnic minority communities represents 51% of the population, and Islam, Sikhism and Hinduism represents over 30% of the population, so I agree religion and community makes a big difference. Incidentally, Christianity is the second largest religion in Birmingham, after Islam.

Interesting to consider that with Bristol Council’s attitude, where around 28% are from ethic minority communities, but over 50% say they are not religious and only 6% are Muslim.

I read that comms in a more hopeful way - We've read the outcome, done our independent due diligence and this is the result. All the complainers can get back in their boxes, because we've covered all angles.

I'm guessing the race and religious demographic helped. And the fact that the City, generally, is bankrupt, so wasting any public money (even if from different sources) would not be a good look.

In a hospital privacy and your own room is a godsend.

Good. I’m relatively nearby - I hope it’s contagious.

Thank you @AnSolas for the reply which seems to confirm that I, as a private individual and not as a provider of goods & services, am not bound by the EQA 2010.

Which is just as well as there are certain people I will have no truck with.

It just shows how the law has been misrepresented by whoever the NHS had their info from, presumably Stonewall, because the law hasn't changed. All these orgs must be relieved that they aren't being sued left right and centre because of previous non compliance.