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
Cailleach1 · 19/03/2026 14:55

Shortshriftandlethal · 19/03/2026 14:36

PC only seems bothered about potential " claims" from trans identified men, not claims from women.

Absolutely, they’re dragging women into court, and fighting them tooth and nail with public money. Don’t give a toss about what message they are still giving to their female employees. Women, who only want to be free of male in female showering and changing rooms. Free from voyeurism and exposure which they as an organisation seemed to enable and indeed promote as a good thing.

SternJoyousBeev2 · 19/03/2026 14:56

moto748e · 19/03/2026 14:47

If I was one of these NHS managers who was going to be called up in front of a tribunal, I think I'd make damn sure I had a good understanding of the other recent tribunals and court cases, and, indeed, legislation, regardless of my personal views. And yet they rock up and make out like they don't know shit.

Exactly this. Especially if you are meant to be SQEP in HR.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 14:57

J - even if a reserved judgment, we may need those 2 days

SC - to confirm, you will contact us if you think you can give judgment Monday J - anything else? No, then subs via email, hard copy delivered by email, names clerk for tomorrow, leave at security if not

J - thank you everyone for time and patience, we will adjourn until 2 pm tomorrow for submissions, can everyone remotely observe please log out.

Court adjourns.

End of afternoon session.

@threadreaderapp please unroll

Thread by @tribunaltweets on Thread Reader App

@tribunaltweets: We expect the afternoon session of Day 5 in LS vs NHSE to begin at 2 pm. It may be a short session. Our coverage of earlier sessions and background on the case can be...

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/2034628947615318461.html

OP posts:
EmpressDomesticatednottamed · 19/03/2026 15:00

DrSpartacularsMagnificentOctopus · 19/03/2026 14:54

Anyone working in HR or HR adjacent or undertaking any HR related function like grievances, disciplinaries, etc. bloody well should be keeping up to date with tribunal outcomes and law changes/clarifications, employment and equality law guidance and whatnot.

Well they should but if they did imagine how that would look. Maybe they opt for looking really stupid as the least worst option? Forgot, don't know, not aware rather than yes I knew all about those things but carried on regardless, just breaking the law, lying through my teeth...

I'm sure I recently heard Akua Rheindorf cheerfully describe cross examining HR bods as akin to a bloodsport. Might have been a This Isn't Working podcast.

MyAmpleSheep · 19/03/2026 15:03

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 14:38

NC - refers to speeding as a rule

PM - yes, but it's easy to measure speeding NC - so if you make a rule that says use facilities of bio sex, most people would follow the rule

PM - but we might get a claim NC - leave that aside, as a general statement

PM - yes, but there are practicalities NC - and if someone breaks the rule, you could speak to him or her, or disciplinary process

PM - yes

NC - so if a TW can pass convincingly as a woman, they are unlikely to be caught PM - Yes

NC - so if there is a rule, and someone breaks it

you won't always catch them but that doesn't mean you can't have a rule. PM - I would agree with the end of that question

NC - you draw a parallel with 2 people wanting a prayer room, one of them must give way, it's a bad analogy because both of them have a right to the space

PM - but we might get a claim

"Would it be unkind of me to ask how that's going for you?"

DrSpartacularsMagnificentOctopus · 19/03/2026 15:04

MyAmpleSheep · 19/03/2026 15:03

PM - but we might get a claim

"Would it be unkind of me to ask how that's going for you?"

Grin
CarrotGiraffeandaTeddyBear · 19/03/2026 15:20

EmpressDomesticatednottamed · 19/03/2026 11:13

Funny how dismantling womens rights to single sex spaces wasn't regarded as a particularly difficult policy.

This is always what I want NC to ask - how long did it take to draft the MIDAWP (Men in dresses at work policy) , do the EqIA and implement? Bet it was a matter of blimmin weeks, yet scrapping it seems to be complex and take sooooooo long that it’s gets shelved.

KnottyAuty · 19/03/2026 15:32

MyAmpleSheep · 19/03/2026 11:52

Maybe Sex Matters should have its own “champions” scheme.

Now that is an excellent idea…..

Madcats · 19/03/2026 15:42

It is such a shame that PM CBA to listen in to this seminar hosted by NHS Resolution in June last year:
https://resolution.nhs.uk/events/hempsons-the-meaning-of-sex-under-the-equality-act-what-you-need-to-know/

The transcript would appear to be here (you'll need to click on a link):
https://www.hempsons.co.uk/news-articles/podcast-the-meaning-of-biological-sex-under-the-equality-act/

MyAmpleSheep · 19/03/2026 15:43

KnottyAuty · 19/03/2026 15:32

Now that is an excellent idea…..

Bodies could sign up for accurate bulletins on equalities law. And if their policies merit and they pass audit, display a special logo on their websites. SM could be supported by receipt of small annual donations, in proportion to the number of employees. It could be excellent.

MyAmpleSheep · 19/03/2026 15:50

Madcats · 19/03/2026 15:42

It is such a shame that PM CBA to listen in to this seminar hosted by NHS Resolution in June last year:
https://resolution.nhs.uk/events/hempsons-the-meaning-of-sex-under-the-equality-act-what-you-need-to-know/

The transcript would appear to be here (you'll need to click on a link):
https://www.hempsons.co.uk/news-articles/podcast-the-meaning-of-biological-sex-under-the-equality-act/

It was good, up to the bit where it says that if you have trans-identifying staff who nobody knows are such and have been using the wrong toilets "for years" then don't "make trouble for yourself" by requiring them to use the correct toilets.

KeepupKardigans · 19/03/2026 16:08

In a contract of employment do you not sign it as an agreement between the employer and employee to abide by the workplace rules? If you are proved to have broken those rules then that should trigger a disciplinary process. The onus would be on the employee’s compliance.

FayeRC · 19/03/2026 16:57

NHSE's last witness got flattened by Naomi today (as per previous days and witnesses). It was a great joy to watch.

We're due back tomorrow at 2pm. Naomi and Simon C will have a busy night tonight, drafting closing submissions. We're expecting a reserved judgement.

We are estimating two additional days will be necessary for remedy hearing. Gardening still appreciated for that as well. Apparently they want to highlight how policy reviews are done, approvals and timelines - as if I haven't been explaining that to them for the last three and a half years, being experienced in public policy making 🤔

Naomi made me her note taker during the cross examination of NHSE witnesses which was sweaty work. I will trawl through MN comments here this evening, thanks in advance to you all.

MarjorieWestriding · 19/03/2026 17:01

What is a 'reserved judgement' please?

AssignedTERFatbirth · 19/03/2026 17:05

MarjorieWestriding · 19/03/2026 17:01

What is a 'reserved judgement' please?

They’ll go away and think about it and write it down later.

Not an immediate on the day judgment.

AssignedTERFatbirth · 19/03/2026 17:07

FayeRC · 19/03/2026 16:57

NHSE's last witness got flattened by Naomi today (as per previous days and witnesses). It was a great joy to watch.

We're due back tomorrow at 2pm. Naomi and Simon C will have a busy night tonight, drafting closing submissions. We're expecting a reserved judgement.

We are estimating two additional days will be necessary for remedy hearing. Gardening still appreciated for that as well. Apparently they want to highlight how policy reviews are done, approvals and timelines - as if I haven't been explaining that to them for the last three and a half years, being experienced in public policy making 🤔

Naomi made me her note taker during the cross examination of NHSE witnesses which was sweaty work. I will trawl through MN comments here this evening, thanks in advance to you all.

An apprentice to NC - lovely job Faye!

Im sure it’s cathartic having these faceless bureaucrats having to actually answer for the harm they caused.

Best wishes for tomorrow.

Ramblingnamechanger · 19/03/2026 17:17

ItsCoolForCats · 19/03/2026 10:58

It's nickname locally is the Kremlin.

We used to know it as the Ministry of Truth!

MarjorieWestriding · 19/03/2026 17:21

AssignedTERFatbirth · 19/03/2026 17:05

They’ll go away and think about it and write it down later.

Not an immediate on the day judgment.

Thank you, that's nice and clear.

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 19/03/2026 17:21

FayeRC · 19/03/2026 16:57

NHSE's last witness got flattened by Naomi today (as per previous days and witnesses). It was a great joy to watch.

We're due back tomorrow at 2pm. Naomi and Simon C will have a busy night tonight, drafting closing submissions. We're expecting a reserved judgement.

We are estimating two additional days will be necessary for remedy hearing. Gardening still appreciated for that as well. Apparently they want to highlight how policy reviews are done, approvals and timelines - as if I haven't been explaining that to them for the last three and a half years, being experienced in public policy making 🤔

Naomi made me her note taker during the cross examination of NHSE witnesses which was sweaty work. I will trawl through MN comments here this evening, thanks in advance to you all.

I'm a tiny bit concerned - who are our legal eagles?

Is it OK / wise to be posting here during the tribunal?

Rightsraptor · 19/03/2026 17:29

This last witness just couldn't see that he (NHSE) are now in exactly the same position he was trying to avoid. I cannot understand how he can't see that. Unless he means he's confident of a win on this one because it's only about pesky women and it'd be so very much worse if the claimant were a man, which would be of huge significance.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 17:44

I don't mind covering tomorrow afternoon from the school car park again, but the signal is very sketchy and is a bit slow so if anybody would rather take over tomorrow's TT I'm happy to relinquish it.

I did have relatively good signal last time but I can't guarantee that it will be the same as the school is surrounded by big metal industrial warehouses so it can be hit and miss.

OP posts:
KittyWilkinson · 19/03/2026 17:50

@Jimmyneutronsforehead thanks again for today. I love that you are offering to continue reporting in from the school car park. Brill!💜

KnottyAuty · 19/03/2026 17:53

NC: Talk here of carefully reviewing policies - this is 9 months ago. How is that review coming along?
PM: Very slowly. Not aware of any policies having been reviewed in light of SC ruling.

This is an utterly shameful admission from the person who has the responsibility for policies in the workplace.

From those in the room - was PM abashed at all? Or was he oblivious to how idiotic this sounds?

spannasaurus · 19/03/2026 18:02

NC - your defense of this claim is actually an exercise in blame shifting isn't it? You want to say it is the fault of the Tribunal,
PM - I disagree
NC - it's a cowardly way to proceed, there is something worse

Is NC saying here that she thinks the reason for NHSE wanting a tribunal rather than settling or changing policy is so they can say they were forced by the tribunal to prevent men from using female facilities.

anyolddinosaur · 19/03/2026 18:02

Faye may need to be careful about what she says but I dont think she's said anything so far that was not in the public domain except for being Naomi's note taker.

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.