Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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
MrsOvertonsWindow · 16/03/2026 12:58

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.

Agree. And let alone that she's showering or undressing.

Still - if the NHS continues to showcase their obsession for promoting indecent exposure and voyeurism against their women staff it's more sunlight I suppose 🙄

CriticalCondition · 16/03/2026 12:59

I too had a 'yikes' moment when I saw 'M Brewer' on the panel. But a bit of googling reveals he's a man and one of the lay members. (He's mentioned in an ET report from a few years ago when he was drafted in to replace one of the lay members who died before the case concluded).

The legally qualified judge is Elizabeth Deeley. Michelle Brewer initially did her judging in immigration matters and as a PP said above now hears administrative appeals eg benefits, pensions, education matters.

She was the one who reversed into a bin, wasn't she?

ILikeDungs · 16/03/2026 13:05

Thank you for doing this Jimmy

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 16/03/2026 13:07

I've also been waiting for a Muslim woman to bring forward a case.

It feels like whenever someone brings up but what about those who can't share an intimate space due to religion, it gets a religion shmeligion response from TRAs.

In previous related tribunals where the claimants have also raised this issue on behalf of others with whom they don't share a faith but can see this has a direct impact, it feels like the panel have largely ignored the basis of religion for being a protected characteristic upon which a proper impact assessment has been required.

OP posts:
nauticant · 16/03/2026 13:23

Yes, Michelle Brewer had the bincident.

CriticalCondition · 16/03/2026 13:37

nauticant · 16/03/2026 13:23

Yes, Michelle Brewer had the bincident.

This never fails to make me smile 😁.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 16/03/2026 13:38

nauticant · 16/03/2026 13:23

Yes, Michelle Brewer had the bincident.

We need the laugh reaction back.

OP posts:
toooldtocaremuch · 16/03/2026 13:41

nauticant · 16/03/2026 13:23

Yes, Michelle Brewer had the bincident.

What was this please?

nauticant · 16/03/2026 14:00

In the Allison Bailey Employment Tribunal hearing, Michelle Brewer claimed to have received a highly relevent telephone call and then had a clear recollection of it. It was suggested to her that the existence of such a phone call was disputed and she replied that her clear recollection was that during the call she reversed her car into a bin.

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1538873025709449216

YellowRoom · 16/03/2026 14:08

I attended 'training' run by Gendered Intelligence. When I asked about women whose faith would not permit undressing in the presence of males and how to manage this from a legal pov (I didn't bother asking from a respecting women pov) he said that all Muslim women he'd encountered were perfectly happy with him and had even flung off their hijabs they felt so comfortable... He later called some of us 'petulant' and booted us off the call.

Madcats · 16/03/2026 14:24

Surely it wouldn’t be THE “It was Christmas” “I reversed into a bin” Brewer?

NC would have researched the panel to within an inch of their social media profiles.

ProfessorEmeritaVeraAtkins · 16/03/2026 14:25

Signing in for this. Another day, another bloody pointless waste of NHS resources (by the NHS).

CassOle · 16/03/2026 14:27

'I attended 'training' run by...'

Why do I get the feeling that 'training' should read 'brainwashing'?

Well done for being 'petulant'.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 16/03/2026 14:31

I'm just off on the school run. Before the court returns can I ask that if anybody can, and wants to support FayeRC, there is a crowd justice page.

I can't link to it but it is easily searchable on the web. There has definitely been movement in the donations department and it's lovely to see support being shown.

OP posts:
DameProfessorIDareSay · 16/03/2026 14:38

And we’re off...

TT

J Discussing various technical problems in the court room with plugs and potentially microphones (it's hard to hear even inside the room although there's a lot of movement and setting up noises.

DameProfessorIDareSay · 16/03/2026 14:40

TT

J Introducing herself as EJ Deeley and Mr Shah and Mr Brewer and her role as chair of the panel but is a 3 way decision of the whole panel. Re remote observers - we have responded with an audio link early afternoon but no-one is observing remotely currently.

YellowRoom · 16/03/2026 14:41

CassOle · 16/03/2026 14:27

'I attended 'training' run by...'

Why do I get the feeling that 'training' should read 'brainwashing'?

Well done for being 'petulant'.

Why thank you -bows with arm flourish-

DameProfessorIDareSay · 16/03/2026 14:43

TT

J Explaining the contact rules for observers in the room. Reminder of rules re recording. Restricted reporting orders and anonymity orders in place. No IDing matter re the C must be produced publicly that may ID the C.

DameProfessorIDareSay · 16/03/2026 14:45

TT

SC All of our witnesses are here.
NC None of mine are.
J To clear up re the 2nd harassment charge
NC Yes, continuing this with both purpose and effect re GC beliefs
J [discussing page nos in evidence bundles]

DameProfessorIDareSay · 16/03/2026 14:48

TT

J Anything before we proceed
NC & SC - both say No
Claimant LS swears in on Koran
J [asks NC to introduce LS's witness statement]
NC I dont have any Qs S
C Before I start, will we be taking a break this pm?
J We weren't intending to but do ask for a break if u need one C

DameProfessorIDareSay · 16/03/2026 14:50

TT

SC U were 1st employed in 2017 as X role
C Yes
SC 14th Apr 2024 u brought this case? [discussing relevant issues that may ID the C]
LS Yes
SC See yr amended grounds of complaint, in para 3 it says "essence of claim is that F only facilities can be used by males who assert

a M ID
LS Yes that's my claim
SC Y're claiming re yr GC beliefs, disability and religion
LS Yes
SC She says she has a detriment of not being able to use the F facilities. Does this accurately reflect yr case?
LS Yes
SC I will look at the chronology and narrative to clarify

DameProfessorIDareSay · 16/03/2026 14:53

TT

SC Late Aug 2022 is when this begins up to a point in 2023 is what we're dealing with. Your place of work was X and then you moved to Y.
LS Yes
SC Re yr work pattern, can you look at yr witness statement p5?

DameProfessorIDareSay · 16/03/2026 14:56

TT

[Some confusion re page numbers]
SC In para 20, were new opportunities re working from home, hybrid working etc. And u reduced yr hours
LS Yes, the plan was to reduce to x hours. I had to think carefully about my childcare and flexible working patterns.

DameProfessorIDareSay · 16/03/2026 14:58

TT

LS I opted for hybrid work pattern and flexible hrs w x number of hrs in the office SC Therefore how many days a wk were u in the office
LS I struggled w the agreed pattern as the work days were 10 hrs. My prev line manager was going to allocate me again as there wasnt any work

DameProfessorIDareSay · 16/03/2026 15:01

TT

LS in their team. The new team. I went to the office a couple of times but was mainly working from home. My child was sleeping poorly. It felt v hard to get to the office when getting little sleep as I cld sleep later if working from home

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.