This is a guest post from LA SEEN member Sarah, who is crowdfunding to take her former employer to tribunal.
Who am I?
My name is Sarah, and I support women’s rights. I am worried about the erasure of women’s hard-fought rights in society. I believe sex is different to gender. I believe that single-sex spaces and services are vital for privacy and dignity and also to protect women and girls from the risk of male violence.
I have been a vetted member of LA SEEN since membership opened.
What am I doing?
I am raising funds via CrowdJustice to prepare an employment tribunal case against my former employer. I want to complain of discrimination and harassment on the grounds of sex and gender-critical belief.
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/sex-discrimination-by-local-authority
What is my case about?
Until September this year, I had worked for Bracknell Forest Borough Council for twelve years, in several roles. My most recent job was a high-level role supporting the ongoing regeneration of Bracknell Town centre. I greatly enjoyed my work. However, in early 2023, I spoke up about my concerns about the Council’s decision to change the single-sex toilets in the public area of the main council office building to mixed-sex toilets. These toilets comprise the standard arrangement of a number of toilet cubicles with shared sinks and hand drying area, in a confined space behind an entrance door. There had previously been a male facility and a female facility, but these were both changed to mixed-sex facilities. I was concerned that there was a potential safeguarding risk to members of the public using this facility, and I was also concerned that this decision reduced or removed privacy and dignity for women who would have to use these toilets.
Later in 2023, the Council introduced a new “Trans and Non-Binary Policy”. This policy stated that anyone intending to transition had the right to use the toilet of their choice from the day after informing their manager that they had decided to undergo gender reassignment. This meant that anyone who wanted to transition could access the toilet of their choice on day one, regardless of any changes or any impact on anyone else.
I also raised concerns about what I had observed was the biased way in which the Council celebrated diversity. In particular, I had observed what I consider was a disproportionate promotion of gender ideology, including what I believed was overuse of the “Progress” Pride flag. This flag was promoted frequently, in both internal communication and promotion in virtual work meetings, and externally, for example on council produced media and physically by raising the “Progress” Pride flag on the councils flag pole. I felt that no other protected characteristic was promoted or advanced in the same way.
I believe there is a conflict between women’s rights and the rights of TQ+ identified people, and that care should be taken by public authorities to ensure no disadvantage is caused by promotion of one characteristic over another.
Why am I doing this?
Many years ago, I was sexually assaulted in a toilet setting; and, like many other women in many other workplaces, I had also experienced the misfortune of miscarrying a pregnancy whilst at work. During that emotional and painful process, I had to spend an extended period of time in the women’s toilets there. In subsequent years I have suffered heavy bleeding from gynaecological issues and post birth prolapses, I have had a hysterectomy, other gynaecological surgery, and I have subsequently been through the menopause.
I am by no means special. I know my experiences are not uncommon amongst other women.
However, my own experiences are a key reason I feel so passionately about the importance of privacy, dignity and safety, and why I believe safe single-sex toilets are absolutely vital for women.
Women need access to toilets and single-sex spaces that directly facilitate us to take care of our biological health needs, and a public authority should ensure that single-sex toilets are provided for women. Many women would struggle to deal with the impacts of these issues in a mixed-sex facility where men are present.
Why do I believe this a strong tribunal case?
My ex-employer did not follow its own process or procedures in approving or implementing these changes or policies. It unfortunately ignored the need for equality impact assessments or consultations; and as far as I am aware, it did not seek to check the lawfulness of the changes. Where there were reports written, they were light on legal reasons for the change, and they did not consider the impact this would have on ALL groups of staff. The council ignored its obligations as a Local Authority under the “Nolan principles” of public life, and importantly seems not to have a good grasp of the relevant requirements of the Equality Act 2010 and other legislation.
For example, if you take a look at the “Trans and Non-Binary Policy” on the Council’s website, a link at the bottom of the policy sends you to an American trans website, which is unlikely to bear any relevance to British law on this topic. The covering report for the policy shows, in my opinion, how little thought went into considering its effects on other staff.
In essence, the Council prioritised the needs of trans identifying people over the needs of all other staff.
Moving to the other issue in my tribunal case, and the over-use of the “Progress Pride” flag, I believe that by encouraging frequent use of this particular symbol, the Council prioritised the promotion of a contested ideology and gender reassignment over other protected characteristics, including sex and belief. Further, certain key staff continued to use the “Progress Pride” flag in July and August (after it had already been used for the whole of June, Pride month) as their background in virtual meetings, during my notice period when I was almost entirely working from home. I say that this amounted to harassment, as I believe this action was taken directly because of the concerns I had raised about over-use of the symbol. Further information about this and my other complaints are in the CrowdJustice link, and I will share as much information as I am able to about the detail in future stages.
Am I bonkers or just cross?
I fully understand that some people may well read this blog and think this is a fuss over nothing, but I know that many others will agree with some or all of the concerns I have raised.
If you’re wondering if this is a fuss over nothing, please carefully consider this …
The Council produced an Equality Impact Assessment around three weeks after the “Trans and Non-Binary Policy” was approved at council committee. In this document, the Council stated it would respond to staff concerns by “signposting to counselling services”.
This is another reason this fight is important. I thought we were decades past long past the spectre of women who stood up for our rights having a “mentally unwell” label applied to us. But it’s happening now – if we dare express discomfort about a detriment being caused to us, this Council says we will be signposted to counselling services.
Let us not open that door.
Whether it’s workplace injustice and disadvantage, fair sport, ‘gender’ pay gaps, removing women’s language, domestic violence and rape, or any of the myriad other areas in life where women are at a detriment, there is still plenty to get cross about.
If you want to learn more about this case and donate to the preparation of the employment tribunal case then the link to the Crowd Justice case is at the end of this blog. ,
I am fortunate to have appointed Elizabeth McGlone of Didlaw and Naomi Cunningham of Outer Temple Chambers, who are both highly experienced in discrimination law including this type of belief discrimination. But expert support does cost, so thank you for reading, and thank you for your donations.
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/sex-discrimination-by-local-authority