Bridget Phillipson now says EHRC single-sex guidance will NOT apply to workplaces

[IwantToRetire]

Ms Phillipson was asked about the ongoing delay in publishing the EHRC guidance on single‑sex spaces.

Ms Phillipson said:

‘There’s no delay, it’s just the process that we are following. I do want to get that good practice out there into the world.

What I would say, however, is the Code of Practice, applies to services and associations. It doesn’t apply to the workplace regulations.

So that really is a matter for the NHS…and how they intend to uphold their responsibilities as an employer.’

‘Alarmed’ Following the meeting, Jennifer Melle, said:

“I am thankful to have had the opportunity to speak to the government about my case. I was alarmed to hear that the long awaited EHRC guidance does not apply to workplaces, however. The government needs to be transparent and someone in authority has to take decisive action.

“I, and nurses across the country, need urgent action from the government so that no nurse has to go through what I have.

Full article https://conservativepost.co.uk/bridget-phillipson-now-says-ehrc-single-sex-guidance-will-not-apply-to-workplaces/

Good luck, Faye! 🙏

Will you be arguing that specific point as part of your case?

Link to Mumsnet thread about your case in case anyone has missed it:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5159395-employment-tribunal-case-to-protect-single-sex-facilities-at-work

I’ve not finished the full thread but I did know all this. However it’s also been highlighted by the GLP who chose to share/ publish the submission to their challenge online but not the submission from the HSE. Which would have said “you’ve lost mate”

and that judgement is now over due

Oh there was only one more post 😆

yes good luck Faye!

Slightly off topic but on BP; she said this this week:

https://x.com/parentsfored/status/2021665936420614340?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

Children and schools have their own acts - which do mandate separate facilities also..

Also the SSWP’s submission has never been made public

The trouble is that if she met with activists I'd bet you'd get her declaiming the absolute opposite to them.

Her actions suggest the plan is to just muddy the hell out of the waters - whether that's intentional or just the kind of chaotic lack of direction and certainty that this party seems to be perfecting- but the effect will be that no one knows what to do, or what's allowed, and that will mean basically the sustained status quo.

Would she? That’s your speculation

she never has so far.

My first thought when I saw Jennifer in the middle of those 2 in the photos was 'did she have any support for the actual meeting'? It looked like some sort of intervention.

I would dearly love to be proved wrong, but I can't find any evidence of her setting any clear boundaries on this. As with Streeting, all sympathy to the nurses' faces but no action at all on the SCJ while the party sits on it. Unfortunately I think tearful activists would absolutely get that from her.

That is questionable if you look at the DfE school specific brief (2023) for secondary schools.

The silence is problematic because it does lead to speculation and second guessing. and assumptions that stonewall et al are right. Which is not helpful at all nor effective safeguarding.

at the same time it’s clear legal shitz follows the beat of its own drum.

Most likely that aspect will be included since the NHS employer has been delaying because they are waiting for EHRC guidance. However, I've told them on many occasions that it is not necessary because the EHRC is not the law itself, and even if guidance was helpful to smaller organisations then in any case this is an employee-employer issue, not about service provision to the public (which the guidance is about).

It could of course turn out that they get a sudden flash of insight last minute and do the right thing just before a full hearing, but I won't hold my breath.

Half of me wonders if the gov want these cases to play out in order to use them on record. So are deliberately being fuzzy about clarifying it all. Which is not very fair on people like you as I imagine it’s so very stressful.

as the same time the Darlington nurse interviews and statements were marvellous to behold

There is definitely an element of in-house resistance for ideological reasons in that those who found the SC ruling upsetting are trying to undermine it with wrong policy advice internally and the decision makers, whether they are seniors in workplaces or civil service, don't have the time/capacity/will to look into the detail themselves, so will over-rely on those advisors. Then it's people like me and the nurses who need to do the work for them.

I'm trying to work through all this, and may get it wrong:
['I was dreaming when I wrote this, forgive me if it goes astray'
to quote Prince]

Toilet configuration in the workplace is a matter not just for building regs, but also for health and safety regs, which require separate sex-segregated facilities for men and women:

The requirement for employers to provide certain single-sex facilities for their workforce has applied since The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations (“the Regulations”) came into force in 1992. However, following the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16, this requirement and the relevant provisions of the Regulations have acquired renewed and significant importance.
The Regulations
There are three regulations which address the provision of single-sex facilities in the workplace. These require:

• that “sanitary conveniences” (i.e. toilets) and, where needed, washing facilities (e.g. showers) are separated for men and women (regulations 20(2)(c) and 21(2)(h), respectively); and
• that, where needed, changing facilities (e.g. changing rooms) are provided or are able to be used separately by men and women “where necessary for reasons of propriety” (regulation 24(2)).........

....The Supreme Court’s judgment determined that references to “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 are to a person’s biological sex only and not, for example, to their certified sex. Following this reasoning, it is highly likely that the references to “men” and “women” in the Regulations are also to biological sex only.

The provision of single-sex facilities in the workplace | Taylor Walton Solicitors
[that's just a random solicitors' website that popped up, I used it cos it's clear]

I don't understand how these workplace regs [a] do not still apply and [b] why the SC ruling does not apply to these regs, i.e. that the single-sex facilities which they mandate must be single-sex as in biological sex.

In other words, WTF are BP & Co on about? What's the problem? What am I missing?

I don't understand either.

I get that the ehrc guidance is for service providers.
And that the workplace is covered by health and safety at work regs.

but..

Does the SCJ apply to the workplace regs in that when it refers to single sex it means sex not gender?

And

why are ETs not clear on this?

And

why do I need a fucking law degree to request a women only changing room.

I agree.
'It's all so complicated!' because they are making it complicated, I suspect.

It is incredibly complicated. It’s complicated for lots of historic reasons, devolution, privatisation, and the fact that legislation and standards did not anticipate a world in which single sex facilities would be used by both sexes.

Man Utd will probably have a new stadium before new EHRC guidance

This is a good read!

Sex, Scoring and NHS Governance
Discussion Paper
Lesley F Feb 09, 2026

Executive Summary

This discussion paper examines why repeated legal clarification of sex‑based rights has not translated into consistent institutional practice within the NHS. It argues that equality law is mediated through governance frameworks that reward visible inclusion activity rather than lawful boundary‑setting. Because identity‑based inclusion aligns closely with scored equality mechanisms, it increasingly functions as a proxy for equality itself. Sex‑based rights, which impose limits rather than expansion, lack comparable governance reach and are consequently reframed as behavioural or cultural issues. The paper proposes measurable governance implications that would be required to realign institutional practice with existing law.

Full article:
https://lesleyf.substack.com/p/sex-scoring-and-nhs-governance

it’s both astounding and horrifying that these highly paid people are failing to do their duty effectively and are now so used to outsourcing things like this that heroes like you are forced to take these cases through.

Dear Mrs Phillipson

Perhaps you could clarify, for those resistant to abiding by the law, that the April 2025 judgment on the meaning of the word sex, already applies to workplace regulations. Your recent statement seemed to imply the opposite. I wonder why that was?

I don't understand how these workplace regs [a] do not still apply and [b] why the SC ruling does not apply to these regs, i.e. that the single-sex facilities which they mandate must be single-sex as in biological sex.

As I understand it,

• the Heath & Safety workplace regulations DO still apply
• but the HSE will only investigate breaches if they are reported officially via RIDDOR and where there has been physical harm as a result of the breach
• the HSE advised Sex Matters that if there is discrimination as a result of the breach then this is covered by EA2010, not the Workplace Regs

HSE RIDDOR
https://www.hse.gov.uk/riddor/index.htm

Sex Matters correspondence with HSE
https://sex-matters.org/posts/category/publications/letters/health-and-safety-executive/

What date does the ET start and where is it being held please? I am sure that there are women who would want to apply to watch online if they cannot attend to provide support xx