Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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
TheSunjustcameout · 19/03/2026 18:28

FayeRC · 18/03/2026 22:15

I was formally released from oath yesterday. Cross examination was such an intense experience.

Thank you for @Jimmyneutronsforehead and @Madcats for sharing tribunal tweets so diligently, and to others for commenting. Your support has been so heart warming ❤

I'm so sorry to hear about your dog Jimmy.

Thank you for standing up for yourself and all other women Faye.
If every woman were as brave as you, this issue would be history.
♀️

thirdfiddle · 19/03/2026 20:00

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.

Thank you spannasaurus. I'd been puzzling about that one and I think you're right. And she's right too.

AssignedTERFatbirth · 19/03/2026 20:19

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.

Yes sounds like it.

We ignored the law but the Judge made us do it.

Namechangerage · 19/03/2026 20:20

Shortshriftandlethal · 19/03/2026 13:24

Can you give us a quick precis of McCurry's involvement and the outcome, please?

Is it that he has a history of not taking claimants seriously?

Edited

General ineptness and an accusation that he had told the claimant’s new line manager information that meant the claimant was treated differently. I can’t believe that someone with a background of these issues would get such a high flying job with the NHS either.

Hedgehogforshort · 19/03/2026 20:23

For those questioning what can and cannot be said. We are not allowed to give a running commentary of proceedings if we were there, that is only permitted for journalists in the room remotely or otherwise. At this juncture it appears that only TT are observing.

As for @FayeRC she is perfectly at liberty to report what happened after the fact here, and her experiences of the day.

The caveat to that being she does not divulge X identity or her own.

Does it not occur to people that she would have taken legal advice from her solicitor before posting here?

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 19/03/2026 20:43

Hedgehogforshort · 19/03/2026 20:23

For those questioning what can and cannot be said. We are not allowed to give a running commentary of proceedings if we were there, that is only permitted for journalists in the room remotely or otherwise. At this juncture it appears that only TT are observing.

As for @FayeRC she is perfectly at liberty to report what happened after the fact here, and her experiences of the day.

The caveat to that being she does not divulge X identity or her own.

Does it not occur to people that she would have taken legal advice from her solicitor before posting here?

It was me that brought it up - being overly cautious.
I guess that the scenario is equivalent to an end of day report that any of the protagonists could give to reporters.
Apologies @FayeRC

Catiette · 19/03/2026 21:02

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 12:17

NC: Is it fostering good relations to take something away from one group and give to another? To prioritise a small group over a much larger group?

PM: I don't think that was our intention. It wsa about removing barriers for a gorup that was facing additional challenges in the workplace. That's what we were trying to do.

NC: I want to suggest that this was all about affirming NHSE position that TWAW and TMAM

PM: I don't think that's our position. Have never had conversations to that effect.

NC: Moving on to For Women Scotland. Supreme Court ruled 16th April 2025. You say in WS that you had been having internal discussions about its impact.

NC: Would it not be reasonable for tribunal to expect that the stalled review of the policy would have been restarted at that point?

PM: Cd be expectation yes - but as I say, an awful lot going on at that time.

Gah! I know you're all several pages ahead and I'm probably interrupting discussion on something else now, but catching up and just read the third or so "It was about removing barriers for a group that was facing additional challenges in the workplace." and I can't take it any more...

PM, WTF do you think single-sex toilets were for, if not "removing barriers for a group that was facing additional challenges"???

Think, man, think!!!

PoshCoffee · 19/03/2026 21:45

Thanks everyone for posting today, just caught up. Realised Quarry House is the building referred to by Leeds-born DH as Ming’s Palace i.e. Ming the Merciless, which probably gives you an idea of DH’s age.

nocoolnamesleft · 19/03/2026 22:08

Really appreciating this thread, as work is too busy to keep up with the tweets real time. As an NHS worker, so grateful to Faye for sticking up for women, even though there is no way she should have to.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 20/03/2026 00:46

PoshCoffee · 19/03/2026 21:45

Thanks everyone for posting today, just caught up. Realised Quarry House is the building referred to by Leeds-born DH as Ming’s Palace i.e. Ming the Merciless, which probably gives you an idea of DH’s age.

😂 that’s great. I temped in WP when I graduated, QH used to be called the Kremlin as well. It’s a distinctive building!

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 20/03/2026 01:00

I had to Google what it actually was, having lived a stint in Leeds (had to experience what other parts of Yorkshire could offer me), and didn't realise that rather imposing building was actually Quarry House.

When there were talks of the floor plan, and the many floors, and the gym (and visiting school children), I thought it was a sky riser with a multiple occupancy of various businesses, not the residency of the Supreme Leader.

Every time I have passed that building I've always wondered what the architect was actually going for.

OP posts:
moto748e · 20/03/2026 01:17

You made me Google-image it now! I see what you mean about the Kremlin! 😁

SexIsNotNebulous · 20/03/2026 06:33

I wonder what other stories in Quarry House residents have silenced. I have a fairly close acquaintance (SIL of oldest friend) who worked for DWP for decades, prior to recent retirement. We discussed the impact on trans ideology at work in 2023 and she told me there was a lot of rage in both the middle aged ladies and Muslim younger women about the diversity policies then. Haven’t seen her for a while so I don’t know what the situation was when she retired last year.

Usual story of people being afraid to speak up. I bet it’s exactly the same at the DWP as it is in NHSE and those policies were probably very similar for both employers who shared that building. The DWP are still there.

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 20/03/2026 06:40

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.

A company cannot expect an employee to sign up to rules that are against the law. The law still applies no matter what misinterpretation they have put int their rules for staff.

KnottyAuty · 20/03/2026 06:45

SexIsNotNebulous · 20/03/2026 06:33

I wonder what other stories in Quarry House residents have silenced. I have a fairly close acquaintance (SIL of oldest friend) who worked for DWP for decades, prior to recent retirement. We discussed the impact on trans ideology at work in 2023 and she told me there was a lot of rage in both the middle aged ladies and Muslim younger women about the diversity policies then. Haven’t seen her for a while so I don’t know what the situation was when she retired last year.

Usual story of people being afraid to speak up. I bet it’s exactly the same at the DWP as it is in NHSE and those policies were probably very similar for both employers who shared that building. The DWP are still there.

Thing is - that based on yesterday’s witness who admitted the policies were still TWAW - any GC people working in those buildings could now/still make a claim for harassment…. Im surprised we’ve not seen more group actions

KeepupKardigans · 20/03/2026 07:45

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 20/03/2026 06:40

A company cannot expect an employee to sign up to rules that are against the law. The law still applies no matter what misinterpretation they have put int their rules for staff.

That’s the point I was making; my interpretation is that employers draft and enforce lawful policies, employers and employees enter into lawful contracts of employment therefore anyone not complying is in breach of that contract. Hiding behind Stonewall advice and perpetuating cultures of fear and intimidation to quash dissent totally unacceptable. Misinterpretations of the law, particularly in light of FWS Supreme Court Ruling, must be corrected pronto. Defending the indefensible at tribunal just adds insult to claimant’s injury so thank you to those brave enough to bring claims.

Rightsraptor · 20/03/2026 08:09

Freedom To Speak Up Guardians were mentioned during the hearing. Superficially that sounds like something anyone in Faye's position should involve very early on but I don't remember that being so unless I missed it.

Various reasons for not using that service occur to me, from Faye (and others) not knowing it exists to it being a tool management use to entrap the gullible, with many options in between.

Has anyone here used it, what happened, was it a useful thing to have available to you, is there any point in it?

Brainworm · 20/03/2026 08:28

Rightsraptor · 20/03/2026 08:09

Freedom To Speak Up Guardians were mentioned during the hearing. Superficially that sounds like something anyone in Faye's position should involve very early on but I don't remember that being so unless I missed it.

Various reasons for not using that service occur to me, from Faye (and others) not knowing it exists to it being a tool management use to entrap the gullible, with many options in between.

Has anyone here used it, what happened, was it a useful thing to have available to you, is there any point in it?

In the NHS trusts I have worked in,
Freedom to Speak Up Guardians are positioned in the whistleblowing space and focussed on issues to do with issues relating to patient care, the whole staffing body, or the organisational culture. They aren’t positioned as being there for individual grievances or when individual staff feel bullied, harassed, or discriminated against.

Are they suggesting Faye should have gone down the whistleblowing route, discussing organisation wide failure to comply with the law in addition to raising a personal grievance?

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 20/03/2026 08:34

The CJ page is at 31871 this morning!!!

How amazing is that?!

Just a reminder to anybody new here, this is the tribunal case of Faye Russell-Caldicott v. NHSE with a case brought against NHSE for indirect and direct discrimination on the grounds of sex, gender critical belief, PTSD and religion due to NHSEs inclusivity policies from Trans members of staff directly contradict the needs of other groups with protected characteristics.

Naomi Cunningham, who represented the wonderful Sandie Peggy is also representing our fantastic @FayeRC, and the CJ page is to help fund legal fees as we all know by now that Naomi and her team are worth every penny.

The target is 70000 seeds, and so I kindly ask that if you can garden, and want to garden, please search Crowd Justice Faye Russell-Caldicott in your search engine.

If you're a woman, this affects you, if you value women, this affects you, if you're a person of faith (regardless of what your faith is frankly with the way these policies are drafted) it affects you, if you value your dignity and privacy at work, this affects you.

We need to show organisation's that feel they're too big to be beaten that women won't be silenced and that our needs, our trauma, our faith, and our beliefs matter and we won't be silenced.

We are rejoining at 2pm for oral submissions, I will be hosting the TT pasting directly from TT Twitter, and I would love to see you all here so we can all show our love and support for this wonderful and courageous woman who has stood up on the stand and through tears and trauma, stood up for what is right for women across NHSE.

This site might have a lot of faces, but one thing we have in abundance over here is love.

See you this afternoon, wims. ❤️

OP posts:
Rightsraptor · 20/03/2026 08:44

I'm not sure who's suggesting what @Brainworm, just that it was mentioned. I have no experience of it but I do have experience of NHS management about which I am cynical.

MarieDeGournay · 20/03/2026 08:45

Very well said, Jimmyneutronsforehead, passionate and eloquent. Courage calling to courage.✊
Matched only by all your hard work to bring us the TT reporting, you truly are a ⭐Smile

[I wish there was a snappy abbreviation for Jimmyneutronsforehead, calling you 'Jimmy' is weird. Maybe JimtheWim?😁]

edited for random unasked-for asterisks and rogue formatting🙄

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 20/03/2026 08:52

MarieDeGournay · 20/03/2026 08:45

Very well said, Jimmyneutronsforehead, passionate and eloquent. Courage calling to courage.✊
Matched only by all your hard work to bring us the TT reporting, you truly are a ⭐Smile

[I wish there was a snappy abbreviation for Jimmyneutronsforehead, calling you 'Jimmy' is weird. Maybe JimtheWim?😁]

edited for random unasked-for asterisks and rogue formatting🙄

Edited

I like JimtheWim. It's giving Pete the plumber vibes and I am very much here for it.

OP posts:
anyolddinosaur · 20/03/2026 09:20

Eid mubarak, Faye. I intend to add something to the fund raiser sometime day. since I'm not Muslim I dont know if it counts as a charitable donation for Eid but it does for me.

Carrelli · 20/03/2026 09:57

Shortshriftandlethal · 19/03/2026 14:34

PM -" the SC ruling is clear, I am still not secure in the court ruling could not result in a claim through the EA which is what we would be seeking to avoid"

The SC ruling was clear about the sorts of conditions a claim could be brought under, wasn't it?

This part is so fascinating and such a clear example of the way that people prioritise threats from men when risk assessing.

He’s talking about a historic decision he made to prioritise the risk of facing a male complainant over female complainants. Innately he is more worried about the male complainant so prioritises them, even tho he has no examples of them complaining.

I’ve seen this so often in promotion discussions. It’s infuriating.

Although it’s historic, it’s also present. he says that he is still in the same state of mind today, his main worry is the male complaint. Even when he’s sat in a tribunal because of a female complainant, being cross examined by a female barrister, in front of a female judge, the phantom male complaint is more important. It’s so depressing.

SixthWorstOption · 20/03/2026 10:08

Carrelli · 20/03/2026 09:57

This part is so fascinating and such a clear example of the way that people prioritise threats from men when risk assessing.

He’s talking about a historic decision he made to prioritise the risk of facing a male complainant over female complainants. Innately he is more worried about the male complainant so prioritises them, even tho he has no examples of them complaining.

I’ve seen this so often in promotion discussions. It’s infuriating.

Although it’s historic, it’s also present. he says that he is still in the same state of mind today, his main worry is the male complaint. Even when he’s sat in a tribunal because of a female complainant, being cross examined by a female barrister, in front of a female judge, the phantom male complaint is more important. It’s so depressing.

This, for me, sums up everything about these cases 😒

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.