Tribunal discussion thread supporting FayeRC in case against NHS England part 2

[Jimmyneutronsforehead]

Today the tribunal concluded it's oral submissions 20/03/26 for the case of Faye Russell-Caldicott v. NHSE

Gardening is still underway, please search Faye Russell-Caldicott Crowd Justice to offer seeds of support. Less than 12 days left to get to target. If you're a woman, you know a woman, and you value women, this case does affect you as we could all find ourselves in this position with our employers and we need to send a message that we won't tolerate having our rights removed. Please if you can, send some gardening funds to the CJ page to help cover the legal fees associated with this case.

This is a continuation thread from: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5504170-tribunal-discussion-thread-supporting-fayerc-in-case-against-nhs-england-starting-160326?page=1

Thank you to everybody for showing your support to the wonderful @FayeRC. ❤️

It will be approximately 1 month before there's a verdict, and a provisional date set in August for a remedial hearing should the court find in FayeRC's favour.

On toilets

194. We concluded that it was reasonable for Allegation 1 to have the Proscribed Effect on the claimant both because of her sex and because of her gender critical belief.

The key reasons for our decision are:
194.1 the Supreme Court’s decision in For Women Scotland clarified the definitions of ‘men’ and ‘women’ in the Act and in the Workplace Regulations (as interpreted by Mr Justice Swift in R on the application of the Good Law Project) as referring to their biological sex. Both of those decisions are binding on this Tribunal. The result of this caselaw is that an employer who permits trans women to use the women’s toilets in effect no longer provides single sex facilities for women as defined Regulation 20(c) of the Workplace Regulations. The employer would then have to show that they provided sufficient lockable facilities in separate rooms;

@Keeptoiletssafe - judgment is a must read. Says really clearly Workplace Regulations are man and woman and trans identified men must stay out of the women's toilets

172. We note that adhering to the Equality Act 2010 and guidance/published good practice advice are legitimate aims. However, there is no express legal right for a transgender person to use the single-sex facilities of their gender identity under the Act or under the Workplace Regulations. The key reasons why we reached this conclusion are:

172.1 the Workplace Regulations do not contain any definition of ‘men’ or of ‘women’;

172.2 the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland in April 2025 held that the words ‘sex’, ‘woman’ and ‘man’ in sections 11 and 212(1) of the Act refer to ‘biological sex’, a ‘biological woman’ and a ‘biological man’. The Supreme Court’s decision in April 2025 clarified the words used by the Act as it has always applied; it is not limited to events that take place after the Supreme Court’s decision was made in April 2025;

172.3 the provisions of the Act do not override Regulation 20 of the Workplace Regulations. The Act contains a prohibition against gender reassignment discrimination. However, the Act does not provide for an express legal right for transgender employees to access the single sex toilets or shower facilities that correspond to their gender identity;

172.4 Mr Justice Swift in R on the application of the Good Law Project concluded that an employer would comply with Regulation 20 of the Workplace Regulations if they adopted and applied a policy that female lavatories were available only to ‘biological women’ (and a similar policy regarding male lavatories being available only to ‘biological men’).

I love how dear old Jolyon has helped further the trans cause by providing the very judgment needed in Tribunals to say that employers comply with the workplace regs by exluding men with a female gender identity.

Thank you Jolyon - the only decent piece of work that GLP has done in many a year.

As to whether women should be excluded rather than make some provision for men or women who have a gender identity -

The judge clearly says - why displace or remove rights from the women - make the 5 trans identified men make way.

179. We appreciate that at Quarry House, there were no unisex shower facilities. However, we note that as part of the claimant’s grievance appeal outcome the respondent stated that if they were still based at Quarry House, they could have considered alternative measures such as exploring if and how access could be provided to secure, single occupancy showering facilities or considering possibilities such as:

179.1 if it would be possible for the claimant to use the showers at certain times on their own;
179.2 whether it was possible to install locks to make a shower area private; or
179.3 if there were any arrangements that could have been made with the
Leisure Centre.

180. If these measures could have been considered for the disadvantaged groups with whom the claimant shared protected characteristics, then they could have also been considered for the respondent’s trans staff as an alternate measure to permitting trans staff to use the women’s single-sex shower facilities.

Link again for those who want to have a read:

https://didlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/ACFrOgAFwh2AfMqBuj1ETDwttJVWcjfk841vxpCGYTRsjWHjjYsa2TVUun2LxUcnWZlfN0UDoxLIa88dO32xRIHGvMimifrGvKy8Oe_U5M2stzoTGC3wcVHgu0-gZUInr1nSUKC4-o4X6q5iH2IWoaItFGgmFO7YaE2QCSXtMw.pdf

Thank you Faye, another crack in the wall.
Thanks to the posters who have picked out the really juicy bits of the judgement - they make for encouraging reading.
Am hoping that Sal gets similar good sense delivered on Friday.

The Stonewall supplied trans friendly policy was not by any stretch of the imagination legal

In the definition section:

2.1 “Trans” is an umbrella term used to describe people whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth. Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, gender-queer, gender-fluid, non-binary, gendervariant, cross-dresser, genderless, agender, non-gendered, third gender, two-spirit, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman, trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois.

So Billy who is a cross-dresser - i.e. has a sexual festish - is per this policy trans and allowed in the womens loos??

Thank you Faye! 💐
Times article
https://www.thetimes.com/article/6af5d639-c924-4c5a-ab03-055d83648ab2?shareToken=1a5c26c2ee1eaffc245f0f1e9414d4d6&ver=article

Some facts from the judgment on how special these special laydee men are:

63% of the 18,000 workforce were women
Approx 25 people were trans, only 5 were confirmed trans women
So 5 men are worth more than 11,000 women.

Sounds like gender ideology hates women right there.

Did the fact that she was Muslim need to be the big story, the Times? Especially when the judgment pretty much said the claim on religious grounds was irrelevant, because all women were disadvantaged.

For all employers

“reliance on contemporaneous guidance or good practice advice cannot justify an incorrect interpretation of the law. Employers must seek their own legal advice and ensure that they are applying the law correctly.”

Doesn't matter which EDI trainer or Union rep gave you bad advice - you can't sue them if they sell you up the river. Get legal advice and pay for it so you can sue the lawyer who gets it wrong.

Insurers should be pushing businesses to get their houses in order. Post this the claims should come thick and fast.

It wasn't held up in the tribunal but I found their reasoning very weak and very odd on that point.

I agree - her being a woman was the very point. But when I read about the need to wash before prayer - how could allowing men into a single sex space not have discriminated against someone who had a religious need to be in that space.

The judgment felt weak on that point.

As to genital inspections - the Judge must read these boards - no need to look for willies - just enforce policies against your employees whose behaviour you can control.

“We accept that it would not be possible for the respondent to guarantee that the single-sex toilets would only be accessed by women. However, this does not mean that the respondent could not take reasonable steps to ensure that such a policy was complied with by its employees and visitors, for example by making it a disciplinary offence to breach any employee policy or by requiring visitors to comply with appropriate policies.”

Not being able to enforce doens't give you permission for a free for all.

And of course, indecent exposure is still a crime. Well, in theory.

Any TRA meltdowns yet? 🤭

Wondedful news! Well done Faye, and thank you ❤

Well done Faye – thank you on behalf of all women.

https://rejserin.medium.com/anti-trans-employment-tribunal-cases-e098a8391bf9

This is fresh over from Reddit…. But it’s hard to make head or tail of….

Gender critics are using the UK civil courts to enforce their reductive beliefs because they cannot face the fact that employers and employees are overwhelmingly trans inclusive.

Gender critics cleave to a philosophical belief about biology which has no actual grounding in biological science precisely because it is a belief which do not require any evidence to uphold.

Some comments on reddit including calling LS names because, you know, the most oppressed are so kind

I think he has taken one too many hockey balls to the head

Well while they hide behind their keyboards pretending to be women, an actual woman was astonishingly brave in real life, and judged to be correct.

So sod them.

Well done Faye, thank you!

Great news. Looking forward to the day when nobody needs to take an expensive case to get clarity.

Such great news!! Well done Faye, and thank you.

Well done Faye!

I had to rub my eyes and do a double take reading that judgement because it appeared to contain more than a modicum of common sense which is just crazy given prior judgements on similar cases.

I am over the moon tonight reading that.

On the point of religion, I also think that is a very weak point in the judgement, us normal folk can clearly see a disadvantage is present.

I do remember a part of the tribunal where the Rs lawyer was trying to hammer this home though and at the time I remember thinking well this isn't actually helping your case either bud because you're basically agreeing that you're defending placing all women at a disadvantage, and I feel like perhaps there is still some lack of confidence in making judgements where religion is involved, which I wish wasn't the case as it seems to reinforce this invisible hierarchy of protected characteristics.

I really hope that FayeRC is happy with the judgement though and understands that this is a win for all women and we love her and we are so proud of her for showing up and not backing down.