Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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
Impossiblenurse · 20/03/2026 13:24

I had a brief email exhange with FTSU Guardian. After FWs ruling. I asked for review of materials on our intranet, specifically as it related to gender, my concern about Trust misinformation and allowing men to access to SS spaces for women. I also explained I was a Trust employee using an anonymous email address because I feared retribution. FTSU Guardian asked me what did I want her to do, and she wished me luck with my "campaign". It just felt so futile...but at least she can't say she didn't know...

moto748e · 20/03/2026 13:27

Keeptoiletssafe · 20/03/2026 11:51

Unisex toilets in the basement and the don’t look at the person next to you talk, reminds me of this picture. The different ways women and men subconsciously ‘look’ where they are going. It’s important in the cubicle or changing room too. Women are very much scanning their immediate vicinity all the time. You can scientifically prove men and women see the world differently.

That's a real, er, eye-opener, @Keeptoiletssafe !

lcakethereforeIam · 20/03/2026 13:28

I read an article in the Telegraph today, a hospital (Bristol I think, possibly Brighton) has taken down some Union flags that were put up in case it upset some people*. I'm attending a local hospital, I've been traipsing around it between departments and inside, an entire wall, has been decorated with the Progress flag colours. It literally knocked me back on my heels. Not a flag that could easily be removed, an entire wall by the main reception.

I'm sorry this is a little off topic but it annoyed me. The double standards (no pun intended). I expect, were I to complain, I'd get a word salad waffle in response, get my card marked as a bigot, homophobic (and possibly racist too) and nothing would be changed. I'd worry it would affect the care I would receive, so I can't risk it.

*I understand why some people might find this upsetting but that's not what my post is about.

MarieDeGournay · 20/03/2026 13:37

Impossiblenurse · 20/03/2026 13:21

I did.. we had a brief email exhange. After FWs ruling. I asked for review of materials on our intranet, specifically as it related to gender and my concern about Trust misinformation and allowing men to access to SS spaces for women. I also explained I was a Trust employee using an anonymous email address because I feared retribution. FTSU Guardian asked me what did I want her to do, and she wished me luck with my "campaign". It just felt so futile...but at least she can't say she didn't know...

FTSU?
Re-arrange these letters to form a well known phrase ...

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 20/03/2026 13:52

Good afternoon, I'm ready to update on the fly.

I'm currently in a taxi stuck behind traffic trying to get into tesco, then I'll need to nip in the house, have a wee, grab a drink, and hop into the passenger seat of our car to get ready for the school run, so for the initial start I may be a minute or 2 behind.

I have an adrenaline rush though, and I am ready to get posting.

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 20/03/2026 13:54

Good afternoon. This afternoon we will be tweeting the oral submissions by Counsel in the case at Employment Tribunal of LS vs NHS England.

There was no hearing this morning as the barristers were composing and exchanging their written submissions to the Court. This will be the last session of the public part of the hearing; the panel will spend Monday deliberating on the case.

Our substack page on the case is tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/ faye-russell...

It includes our reporting from the earlier days of the hearing.

We are a collective of citizen journalists and work on a voluntary basis. We endeavour to report everything that we hear but do not provide a verbatim report of proceedings.

You can support us by subscribing to our Substack (link in bio) which funds some travel and our IT costs.

The substack page also includes a full list of the abbreviations we use, including

J: Employment Judge Deeley

P: either of the two lay members sitting with the Judge.

LS, or C: the anonymous Claimant NC - Naomi Cunningham, Counsel for C

NHSE or R - NHS England, the Respondent SC - Simon Cheetham KC, counsel for R

We expect the hearing to begin at 2.00pm

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 20/03/2026 14:07

We are still waiting for the hearing to begin.


Doing my fastest run into the house now.

OP posts:
Hedgehogforshort · 20/03/2026 14:09

@Jimmyneutronsforehead bless you!!!

MarieDeGournay · 20/03/2026 14:16

Here we go again - sending good wishes to Faye, thank you for fighting for all of us, and may not just Eid be mubarak, but also the outcome of this case.Smile
And thank you JimtheWim!

MassiveWordSalad · 20/03/2026 14:17

Thanks JimtheWim

And Eid Mubarak to @FayeRC 🌙 🎉 🎁

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 20/03/2026 14:19

[Hearing is beginning]

J: Miss Cunningham you have an additional document?

NC: Yes - I refer to the ETBB and have sent you two versions for comparison.

J: You refer to report by Professor Phoenix but I don't think we have it

NC: Oh I thought it was sent in ages ago

J: I am not sure if we do

NC: I can re-send

J: Please do - to make sure we have electronic copy as well as hard copy.

NC: We should also send you an authorities bundle?

SC: If you require it - I am not sure we have

referred to any obscure cases

J: I think we won't need an authorities bundle.

SC: I'm happy to send next week if you do need one.

J: We will see how that goes.

OP posts:
MarieDeGournay · 20/03/2026 14:24

You refer to report by Professor Phoenix but I don't think we have it
NC: Oh I thought it was sent in ages ago
J: I am not sure if we do
NC: I can re-send
J: Please do - to make sure we have electronic copy as well as hard copy.
NC: We should also send you an authorities bundle?
SC: If you require it - I am not sure we have
referred to any obscure cases
J: I think we won't need an authorities bundle.
SC: I'm happy to send next week if you do need one.
J: We will see how that goes.

This reads like a Jane Austen dialogue where something... very Austenish [can't think of an example] has been replaced with the words 'authorities bundle' 😁

Vintage62 · 20/03/2026 14:24

KittyWilkinson · 20/03/2026 11:44

Quarry House sounds like something from Slow Horses. I'm imagining that's where they make the decision to send the difficult people to Slough House.

Funnily enough the architect Terry Farrell who was responsible for initial plans for Quarry House also designed the real MI6 building in London which becomes the fictional River House in Slow Horses.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 20/03/2026 14:25

J: Miss Cunningham, in your subs you say R has conceded both group and individual disadvantage but I am not sure that SC agrees, re Muslims / Muslim women? SC: We have agreed re Muslim women, but felt 're Muslims' in general was too broad.

J: I understood LS to have said that Muslim men have access to facilities in the multi-faith room, but women were not given the same. I am just raising in case either of you wish to comment.

NC: That does not form part of the claim in the end - so, just background information from LS.

J: Was looking at from PoV from the rarely-if-ever used part of the EA re combining of different protected characteristics

J: So am wondering if this case, re Muslim women, is tending towards that combination of discrimination. Am raising in case either of you wish to address. Ministry of Defence v Debique 2010 ET case [gives ref]

J: I appreciate that this is only part of LS complaint and may not make a material difference, but I wanted to bring it up. Perhaps we should go with the prepared submissions, and if necessary will ask for addition written on this point.

J: Mr Cheetham I understand you are not pursuing time limits?

SC: No.

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 20/03/2026 14:27

SC [begins submissions]

SC: I won't be reading out my submissions you have already read them, will address NC submissions etc. Except that, I refer at the start of mine to intemperate language, and am going to withdraw that.

SC: Want to avoid NHSE appearing to say anything that a keyboard warrior could stir up a storm about.

I hope he's not talking about us 💅

OP posts:
MarieDeGournay · 20/03/2026 14:31

SC: Want to avoid NHSE appearing to say anything that a keyboard warrior could stir up a storm about.

I think that train has left the station, Mr Cheetham😏

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 20/03/2026 14:32

SC: So, on to NC subs. Much about 'legitimate aims'.

[discussion of hard copies of both subs] SC: NC has as it were gone through R's 'legimate aims' with a blue pencil.

SC: It may be correct to say R's are 'anodyne', but that does not mean they are unreasonable ones. In 2017 when policy introduced, the R felt that that is what it was doing. Even if tribunal finds did not achieve, does not mean R's aims not legitimate.

SC: Now of course as Miss Hodgskiss acknowledged a women's network would have been involved, but in 2017 there was not one. We must not apply hindsight incorrectly either in terms of attitudes or

the law.

SC: I can't think of any other area where there have been such shifts in relation to employment.

OP posts:
SternJoyousBeev2 · 20/03/2026 14:33

Simon can fuck right off. He knows how bad it will look if he pulls a JR and childishly keeps trying to control the language that NC and women use to describe men.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 20/03/2026 14:36

SC: NC is also cynical about - I should say, I think we can all agree that all 4 witnesses were doing their best to assist the tribunal, best evidence. Yes it was R position that transmen and transwomen were to to be treated as men and women respectively.

SC: LS says that respecting gender identity is not a legitimate aim, that GI is metaphysical. But we say, it was not about accepting GI, was about *respecting, and we say, legitimate aim to hold. And adhering to the EA2010.

aye Simon but do you know what is very, very physical. Penises.

SC: Before FWS the R genuinely believed that they had to allow T access to single sex spaces, and they are not alone in that.

OP posts:
SternJoyousBeev2 · 20/03/2026 14:36

SC: I can't think of any other area where there have been such shifts in relation to employment.

Sounds like something that HR practitioners should be prioritising…. Oh, wait….

OdeToTheNorthWestWind · 20/03/2026 14:37

NC is cynical? How very dare he! 😁

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 20/03/2026 14:38

SC: This is an area where hindsight is difficult. Legalistic argument is that he Supreme Court states the law as it always has been. But that's not what many inc R had previously understood, and "you should have known" is not helpful.

SC: There is no doubting the impact of the Supreme Court ruling. We know now how the EA should be read. But tribunal cannot ignore how it was read at the time.

SC: NHSE was not only not unique, it was acting the same way as every other public body I know of. Stonewall's involvement in that not unclear. NHSE not acting in

isolation.

SC: We can say now that that information is tarnished - but the R did not have that foresight at the time.

SC: Legitimate aim of allowing access NC says, meaningless. please recall R evidence esp from PG about restrictions re the estate. Lease clear that NHSE not responsible for the facilties.

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 20/03/2026 14:41

SC: NHSE did not even have single use of some facilties i.e. ground floor.

SC: NC refers to Mr McCurry - he was candid in giving evidence, clear about R understanding at the time.

SC: And re statistics. In 2017 R was not considering statistics. NC put figs esp to Mr McC, but it's clear that analysis was not done in 2017. R did not know how many ppl M or F objected to sharing the facilties, no.

SC: And re harassment. Am not putting forward any argument that C did not suffer the feelings she had, but, we do argue the

case on R intent.

SC: We don't think Erk Gunce comments in 2023 are relevant and indeed LS does not make any claim re those events (trans

awareness session)

OP posts:
MyThreeWords · 20/03/2026 14:43

I know things have moved on, but I just googled Quarry House and it looks like the Lego version of 1984.

SternJoyousBeev2 · 20/03/2026 14:44

Very bold of SC to argue that the Rs were reasonable in the assumption that ‘trans rights’ somehow trumped women’s rights. Especially when there is no evidence of any attempt to balance competing rights.

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.