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
DameProfessorIDareSay · 16/03/2026 15:57

No probs @Jimmyneutronsforehead DH is bringing me cuppas 😄

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 16/03/2026 15:57

Thank you so much ❤️

OP posts:
DameProfessorIDareSay · 16/03/2026 15:58

TT

SC I dont have Q on that but NC may. An email from Eliz Gunz not to you re facilities for NB ppl and the organisational response. Yr employer is responding to yr concerns.
LS There is a response a couple of yrs later. It felt like they were avoiding answering Qs and procrastinating effectively

DameProfessorIDareSay · 16/03/2026 16:00

TT

LS Normally takes 3-4 days to get a response but nothing in 8-9 weeks here
SC Azling Amera responds...a description of the various facilities at site A. So yr complaints werent being ignored?
LS I think, cos on Feb 15th, on p465, at 01.25 Eric emails Azling.

LS It took him a month to forward on my Qs. That prompted something but I didnt really get anything back. It took him a month to explore this further. It's not fast. I cldnt come to the office so important to me
SC But u werent coming in before Oct
LS That was to do w my LM not

DameProfessorIDareSay · 16/03/2026 16:02

TT

being at site A. I wld be Billy no mates. I had a new team and didnt know anyone. I felt like it was temporary, and we had convos about mtg face to face. I still came in once or twice. Then I changed teams. I also went on the away day in Oct.
SC Not at the office
LS No

DameProfessorIDareSay · 16/03/2026 16:06

TT

LS Can u repeat the Q
SC I think you answered it. I cant remember it
J [repeats the Q]
LS I had no reason not to come when I was well. That time period of a few weeks before Ursula Montgomeries email was quite exceptional. That explains my absense mostly. It wasnt my intended

LS way of working.
SC Go to p182. AN email from you to Mr Gunz. Title "consultation of SS spaces" You mention that any applic to ACAS isnt time limited. So u were thinking of ET proceedings

DameProfessorIDareSay · 16/03/2026 16:07

TT

LS Yes, from the trans awareness session as I was so upset and I was looking into the legality of the policy pretty much immed
SC Oct 10th
LS I dint know how to handle things but knew I wanted to advocate for change. I recog it was potentially diff to progress things internally

DameProfessorIDareSay · 16/03/2026 16:08

TT

LS So I looked into other options, incl ACAS mediation. That's why I put it there. SC U have answered my Q, thank you. In yr WS on p16, there's a section headed Feb 23 nd redundancy threat. There was no redundancy process
LS I felt there was...
SC But was there one?
LS No

DameProfessorIDareSay · 16/03/2026 16:12

TT

SC That'll be a good place to break
J Have you anything you want to raise
NC or SC? [both reply no]
J We'll aim to start promptly at 10am tomorrow then
Court adjourns

Ends

anyolddinosaur · 16/03/2026 16:12

So they ran an "awareness" session - wonder who ran that, perhaps it will come up again.

The dud floor plan will have been given to the panel, dont imagine the judge is too pleased with that either.

Xiaoxiong · 16/03/2026 16:40

A few of those questions seem to be the barrister insinuating that because she was a mostly remote worker that wasn't coming in frequently, she shouldn't need to be accommodated wrt single sex toilets. Whereas the point LS seems to be making is, she was actively avoiding coming in because of the lack of SS toilets and SS changing facilities.

Rightsraptor · 16/03/2026 16:45

I definitely get the feeling that SC's questioning is that LS was hardy ever in the office so what's the problem? Faye said in her last crowdfunder update that 'proportionality' was an issue, so I'm wondering if this is what she meant by that.

OdeToTheNorthWestWind · 16/03/2026 16:47

The fact that LS was mainly working remotely is irrelevant in any case. If the employer designated facilities as single sex (F), they should not be open to anyone of the opposite sex, however they present. SC knows this perfectly well, which makes his approach so far, rather puzzling.

LS came across as being very switched on and pulled SC up on detail a couple of times.

Londonmummy66 · 16/03/2026 16:47

Xiaoxiong · 16/03/2026 16:40

A few of those questions seem to be the barrister insinuating that because she was a mostly remote worker that wasn't coming in frequently, she shouldn't need to be accommodated wrt single sex toilets. Whereas the point LS seems to be making is, she was actively avoiding coming in because of the lack of SS toilets and SS changing facilities.

Which should be a clear case of disadvantage as not being able to come in to work and be around your team means that you run the risk of being overlooked for projects/promotion etc and don't have visibility for your work.

anyolddinosaur · 16/03/2026 16:48

I'd guess the argument is going to be we agree its discriminatory but the trans person is here more often/ all the time and he has been changing at work. there will probably be a "you're the only one that has complained" in there somewhere and it's proportion for us to not consider you at all because you can use the disabled facilities than we've labelled as gender neutral now. So we dont need to give you any money or do anything unless people complain. That might run in Scotland but be interesting to see how an English judge reacts.

I've a feeling there is some research around on people who dont go into the office being at a disadvantage for promotions? So by making it difficult for her to go to the office they could be damaging her career.

Kucinghitam · 16/03/2026 16:55

I thought maybe SC was working up to a version of the old "N+1" argument whereby LS was only affected "a few" times.

Xiaoxiong · 16/03/2026 16:58

There was also a glancing reference at the end to redundancies - a lot of workplaces have used employee foot-dragging on return to the office mandates as a potential reason for making people redundant as well. It would be really unfair to do that if the reason LS wasn't coming in was because there were no toilets available for her.

PrettyDamnCosmic · 16/03/2026 17:00

Faye is coming over very well. Confident & not afarid to push back at the respondent's barrister e.g. when presented with plans of the wrong office.

Hedgehogforshort · 16/03/2026 17:03

So on the basis of what i can gather, LS did not go in to work much due to the facilities situation, and that this is being used by SC to argue she was not there much. (Apart from that being irrelevant to the actual legal obligations of the NHSE). This is a catch 22 situation, which is a flimsy defence to say the very least.

Add on to that the suggestion that she could hunt down more compliant facilities, in a shared building, i am of the view that SC has not got off to a good start.

Keeptoiletssafe · 16/03/2026 17:06

PrettyDamnCosmic · 16/03/2026 17:00

Faye is coming over very well. Confident & not afarid to push back at the respondent's barrister e.g. when presented with plans of the wrong office.

Agree. Very clear, articulate and non confrontational.

MarieDeGournay · 16/03/2026 17:09

Xiaoxiong · 16/03/2026 16:40

A few of those questions seem to be the barrister insinuating that because she was a mostly remote worker that wasn't coming in frequently, she shouldn't need to be accommodated wrt single sex toilets. Whereas the point LS seems to be making is, she was actively avoiding coming in because of the lack of SS toilets and SS changing facilities.

What about principle? Employers should provide the facilities required by workplace regs, health and safety etc. as a matter of principle, not on the basis of who happens to be employed at any given time.

This case looks like an example of what happens if it's done on an 'ah sure you're grand, nobody minds'/'à la tête du client' or something like that.

It's OK that there's no single sex space for women - until it isn't, until a woman comes along and says no it's not, and then she has to be the awkward ' only one to complain' and has to crowdfund to take it all the way to a tribunal.

The women's/men's/accessible configuration worked for the vast majority of the population. Messing around with it without proper reason or justification, at the behest of the tiny but loud and sometimes violent trans community, is coming back to bite employers now.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 16/03/2026 17:13

Thank you @DameProfessorIDareSay for covering TT.

I was hoping to have everything done this morning and be free by this afternoon but the stars were not in alignment today.

Excellent coverage.

I should be fine to pick up tomorrow all bar the school run.

OP posts:
Xiaoxiong · 16/03/2026 17:16

Rightsraptor · 16/03/2026 16:45

I definitely get the feeling that SC's questioning is that LS was hardy ever in the office so what's the problem? Faye said in her last crowdfunder update that 'proportionality' was an issue, so I'm wondering if this is what she meant by that.

I think the H&S regs say something about "sufficient" toilets - this makes sense so eg. at a workplace where 90% of the staff are male, the expectations of numbers of male vs female toilets will be different than in a workplace where the staff are 50/50 male/female or 90% female. However, having googled, I found this: "On 31 March 2023, NHS England employed 18,930 people. 64.6% of our workforce were women and 35.4% were men."

https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/gender-pay-gap-report-2023-for-nhs-england/

On that basis, having no single sex female toilets available at all seems unlikely to be proportional to the employee makeup regardless of how many people complained.

Incidentally, the workforce comprises 4.96% colleagues identifying as lesbian, gay or bi (LGB), 79.31% as heterosexual, 0.31% recorded as ‘other’ and 15.41% are unknown. The median gender pay gap was 8.66% in favour of men. The median sexual orientation pay gap was...0%!

NHS England » Gender pay gap report 2023 for NHS England

NHS England » Gender pay gap report 2023 for NHS England

https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/gender-pay-gap-report-2023-for-nhs-england

DameProfessorIDareSay · 16/03/2026 17:19

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 16/03/2026 17:13

Thank you @DameProfessorIDareSay for covering TT.

I was hoping to have everything done this morning and be free by this afternoon but the stars were not in alignment today.

Excellent coverage.

I should be fine to pick up tomorrow all bar the school run.

No problem. I definitely will not be around tomorrow so hope someone can pick up the baton when you need a break.
Sorry you have had a bit of a day @Jimmyneutronsforehead 💐

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.