Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Tribunal discussion thread supporting FayeRC in case against NHS England starting 16/03/26

1000 replies

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 15/03/2026 23:58

Thanks for joining in this discussion in support of @FayeRC and the case against NHSE.

This is a private tribunal case, so there will be no live viewing, however TT will be covering and I'll be doing my best to cover it here, however my Monday has become very busy, so any support from PPs is welcomed!

Groundskeeping rules, let's all remain respectful in our discussions. I'm sure TT will cover the Judges expectations for coverage in the morning. This should be a lot smoother as this tribunal isn't open for public viewing and so a lot less scope for error, however discussion should be about what is accurately being reported on and not misrepresented.

FayeRC is a pseudonym and so I ask that if anybody recognises FayeRC throughout the tribunal we respect the anonymity requested.

There will also be current, and frequent gardening requests on the crowd justice page, please search Faye Russell-Caldicott crowd justice if you can support. We have less than 17 days to help raise another £40,000.

"I have issued an employment tribunal complaint against NHS England for indirect discrimination on the basis of sex (women), religion (Islam), philosophical belief (gender critical) and disability (PTSD) for having a policy in place which effectively renders the supposed single-sex toilet, changing room and showering facilities as mixed-sex.
According to NHSE’s trans staff policy, transwomen (born males) can use female facilities in addition to male and gender neutral facilities. Which means that NHSE expects women to share female facilities with biological males. If a woman is not happy with that, she is directed to use the gender neutral toilets, and transwomen (males) can continue using the female facilities. The policy is blatantly discriminatory against women, especially in those office bases where the showers are open plan.
Simultaneously, my claim also includes claims of direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation related to my philosophical belief (gender-critical).
This is one of the first cases in England where a court will be asked to decide whether such a trans staff policy is discriminatory against employees with other protected characteristics. There has been no Equality Impact Assessment conducted in relation to the policy. When developing the policy, NHSE did not thoroughly consider the needs of women or the implications of trauma and religion, or the normal and common boundary a female member of staff might assert that she just simply does not want to shower in direct line of sight with a biological male.
The response from NHSE has been extremely disappointing. I have been told that all staff members are expected to follow the policy. I have been told that NHSE is already offering single-sex female facilities, which can be used both by “those born female, and those who identify as female.” Their rationale for not excluding transwomen from women’s facilities is that “even if there would only be one transwoman excluded from the female facilities, we would consider that unjustifiable unlawful discrimination.” In its response, NHSE effectively denies the relevance of biological sex as the basis for single-sex spaces.
My claim is that the current staff policy is discriminatory on the basis of sex, religion, belief and disability and the facilities should be made female-only by excluding males.
I will be applying for full anonymity, which will be essential for me to take the case forward, given my personal circumstances. If my application for anonymity is not accepted at the preliminary hearing, I will pass all remaining donations to another case of my choice which seeks to secure women’s single-sex facilities or services.
Please help by donating and sharing the link. Like with all court cases, there is a risk of losing. This crowdfunding pays for my legal fees. I will not be benefitting financially from the crowdfunding because the money raised will go directly to my legal team’s client account. Any compensation from the employer is likely to be modest. I am pursuing this case because women’s rights to safe spaces, safeguarding and consent should not be overridden.
Yours faithfully,
Faye Russell-Caldicott"

From FayeRC's own thread, here is the broad summary of events that has lead to this tribunal:

  • A male colleague transitioned in 2022. We were told the person would use facilities of their preference. Staff in my Directorate were told what was expected from us and this was in effect immediately.
  • We had open plan changing room and showers and usual cubicle toilets.
  • I am an actual woman, Muslim, gender critical and have PTSD. I cannot share facilities with males.
  • Following this, I raised in 2022 that facilities were effectively mixed sex. NHSE disagreed and said they were offering single-sex facilities for those born female and those who identified as female.
  • Raising these issues internally was extremely difficult for me and did not lead to any changes to staff policy. I argued ‘sex’ in EqAct 2010 meant biological and therefore could not include males who identified as women. They did not agree. Their interpretation was that if even one transwoman was excluded from female facilities that was discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment. I did tell them nearly all transwomen retained their penis and those who had it removed were males nevertheless.
  • I was effectively pushed out from female facilities to use gender neutral toilets which I have continued to use to date.
  • One would have thought Fife, Darlington and SC ruling were helpful but they have not prompted any changes to policy to date.
  • After SC ruling an all staff announcement was made in support of everyone, including those with trans supportive views and ‘other views’. Policy was put on hold and under review but not removed. It remains so for nearly a year later.
  • They have been waiting for EHRC guidance (on public service provision). I have told them they are waiting for a wrong piece of guidance. This is an employer-employee matter.
  • Policy was created with support from trade unions, Stonewall and GIRES. No women’s organisations, trauma support organisations or religious organisations were involved in policy drafting.

As mentioned earlier, I'll do my best to keep up with TT, but I've had a curveball thrown at me this weekend which will take up a chunk of Monday, however I shall keep you all posted so if somebody can take over when I am not available for all those that aren't on TwiX that would be great, alternatively I'll be sure to post the summaries at each break and redirect to Nitter in the interim.

Thank you to everybody who has already shown FayeRC their support, let's get this some traction and help a fellow wim out.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
18
MarieDeGournay · 16/03/2026 10:16

Sending good wishes to Faye, and to yourself, OP, thank you for continuing to update us while dealing with your own 'stuff', I hope things improve for you ASAP.
And thank you for the new addition to my vocab: 'fellow wims', that made me smileSmile

Take care, OP, and good luck Faye!✊

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 16/03/2026 10:17

indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex, religion and disability (PTSD) as well as harassment related to her sex and philosophical belief (gender-critical)

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 16/03/2026 10:18

Tribunal Tweets

The claimant argues that NHSE failed to conduct an equality impact assessment before implementing the policy and did not consider the needs of women, trauma survivors or individuals whose religious beliefs require single-sex facilities.

Tribunal Tweets

NHSE originally maintained that its policy is non-discriminatory but has recently conceded liability to indirect discrim relating to sex and disability. NHSE agreed that the claimant is disabled with PTSD and anonymity and reporting restrictions on her real identity were granted Show more

Tribunal Tweets @tribunalt... 3m

We've just been informed by the clerk that we do have permission to live tweet but that there won't be any public session this morning, or potentially even this afternoon as case management will be taking place. We will let you know as soon as we hear
more.

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 16/03/2026 10:19

Tribunal Tweets

A reminder that we report what we hear in good faith but do not provide a transcription of court proceedings.

We are a volunteer organisation and unpaid for our work. Subscriptions to our Substack support our work by funding some travel costs and our IT costs and are much appreciated.

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 16/03/2026 10:20

Tribunal Tweets @tribunalt...

The ET panel for the case are: EA Deeley, Q Shah and M Brewer.

Abbreviations:

LS, Faye or C - the anonymous Claimant, employee at NHS England

NHSE or R - NHS England, the Respondent

E - Elizabeth McGlone, solicitor for C

NC - Naomi Cunningham, Counsel for C

@tribunal...

4m

Tribunal Tweets

SC - Simon Cheetham, counsel for R

J - Judge

P - ET Panel member

GC - gender critical

TSP - trans staff policy

F- female

M - male

CR - changing room

EHRC - Equalities and Human Rights

Commission

SC - Supreme Court

EIA - equality & impact assessment

PSED - public sector equality duty

PC - protected characteristic

EA - Equality Act 2010

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 16/03/2026 10:27

While we wait for more information from TT, for anybody new to the thread, we would love your support on the Crowd Justice page for Faye Russell-Caldicott towards legal fees.

I can't link to the page without breaching MN guidelines, however it is accessible via a quick web search.

I'm certain we can make a big dent in the donations, and we have 16 days or less to reach 40k.

OP posts:
Madcats · 16/03/2026 10:32

Simon Cheetham represented Darlington NHS, didn't he?

Luck shouldn't have to come into it, but good luck to Faye.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 16/03/2026 10:38

Madcats · 16/03/2026 10:32

Simon Cheetham represented Darlington NHS, didn't he?

Luck shouldn't have to come into it, but good luck to Faye.

Yes, I believe he did, I didn't catch much of the Darlington Tribunal case but I remember seeing his name pop up, and he was a bit of a force to be reckoned with.

Faye has our beloved Naomi Cunningham representing her in this tribunal, so it will be interesting to see what an unstoppable force does to an unmoveable object.

OP posts:
DrSpartacularsMagnificentOctopus · 16/03/2026 10:41

Thanks @Jimmyneutronsforehead Brew Cake

All fingers crossed for Faye Flowers

ThreeWordHarpy · 16/03/2026 10:49

Madcats · 16/03/2026 10:32

Simon Cheetham represented Darlington NHS, didn't he?

Luck shouldn't have to come into it, but good luck to Faye.

Yes, and I seem to recall that he was courteous, professional and thorough. An “honest” opponent if you like.

Interesting though that the case is still going ahead as he would have intimate knowledge of the Darlington case, but I guess that he can only advise his clients.

moto748e · 16/03/2026 10:53

Parsnips planted, good luck Faye, you have the best team!

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 16/03/2026 11:02

It could be a good long while before we hear any updates especially if they decide to break early for lunch, so pull up a chair and make sure your cup is filled.

Knowing my luck I'll pop off to boil the kettle just as things are starting.

OP posts:
lcakethereforeIam · 16/03/2026 11:09

Thank you. Everything crossed for Faye.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 16/03/2026 11:34

"The ET panel for the case are: EA Deeley, Q Shah and M Brewer".

Presumably the M Brewer is not the Michelle Brewer from the infamous Allison Bailey / Garden Court Chambers case?

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 16/03/2026 11:48

MrsOvertonsWindow · 16/03/2026 11:34

"The ET panel for the case are: EA Deeley, Q Shah and M Brewer".

Presumably the M Brewer is not the Michelle Brewer from the infamous Allison Bailey / Garden Court Chambers case?

I'm not certain but I imagine there's a very high chance it is the same, as the panel are usually, or supposed to be, experts in their particular field.

OP posts:
MrsOvertonsWindow · 16/03/2026 11:57

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 16/03/2026 11:48

I'm not certain but I imagine there's a very high chance it is the same, as the panel are usually, or supposed to be, experts in their particular field.

I'd have thought that some of the revelations in that case would have meant that M Brewer's neutrality could be challenged?

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Bailey-judgment.pdf

But IANAL and this may of course be a different Brewer.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Bailey-judgment.pdf

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 16/03/2026 12:07

MrsOvertonsWindow · 16/03/2026 11:57

I'd have thought that some of the revelations in that case would have meant that M Brewer's neutrality could be challenged?

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Bailey-judgment.pdf

But IANAL and this may of course be a different Brewer.

I think because Michelle Brewer wasn't adjudicating on the ABvGCC case it would be hard to prove bias in this case if it is the same M Brewer.

I'm also not a lawyer, nor am I au fait with legal proceedings in general so I could be wrong.

OP posts:
MrsOvertonsWindow · 16/03/2026 12:07

DuchessofReality · 16/03/2026 12:04

I don't think it is the same M Brewer as the witness in Alison's case as that Michelle Brewer is now an Upper Tribunal judge in the Administrative Appeals Chamber:

https://www.judiciary.uk/appointments-and-retirements/appointment-as-a-judge-of-the-upper-tribunal-administrative-appeals-chamber-brewer/

Thank you. Hopefully you're correct but given some of the recent jaw dropping revelations about the nature of those who hear some of these ETs (and their unbelievable error ridden outcomes) thought it was worth checking.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 16/03/2026 12:11

Tribunal Tweets @tribunaltweets

LATEST: The open session of the hearing is due to start at 2.30pm today.

We will resume then.

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 16/03/2026 12:12

I have to set off on the school run at 2:30pm, but I am usually back by 3:30pm if there's anybody that can cover for that hour?

If not, excuse my delay and I'll play catch up when I'm back.

OP posts:
DameProfessorIDareSay · 16/03/2026 12:24

I’ll be around @Jimmyneutronsforehead

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 16/03/2026 12:30

Thank you. I'll make my return as swiftly as I can

OP posts:
Turtlesgottaturtle · 16/03/2026 12:38

A case brought by a Muslim woman is something I've been waiting for for a long time! In the old days, a case brought on the grounds of discrimination against Muslims would have been taken very seriously by an employer - more so than a sex discrimination claim. Now trans trumps everything else. And this case includes PTSD too - to two key issues for women who are in practical terms absolutely not able to share changing rooms etc with men.
It's interesting that the employer has made the claimant use the gender neutral facilities. Presumably there is more privacy in those facilities, but query at what point it becomes acceptable (in legal terms) for a woman who is Muslim and/or has PTSD due to a previous sexual assault (may or may not be the case here) to say no to a situation where she may be alone in a room with a male colleague.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.