[Address of service provider]
[Date]

Letter before court claim

[Discrimination / harassment / victimisation] because of gender-critical beliefs

This letter concerns [brief description of service provider’s action – such as suspension from a club, refusal of service or barring from a facility on a particular date, or in a date range]. This is unlawful discrimination on grounds of gender-critical belief contrary to the Equality Act 2010. 

Equality Act 2010

The Equality Act 2010 Section 13(1) defines direct discrimination:

“A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.”

Section 10 defines the protected characteristic of religion or belief:

1. “Religion means any religion and a reference to religion includes a reference to a lack of religion.
2. Belief means any religious or philosophical belief and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief.
3. In relation to the protected characteristic of religion or belief—
   • a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular religion or belief;
   • a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same religion or belief.”

Section 29 (1) and (2) provide that this is an unlawful act if carried out by a service provider:

1. “A person (a “service-provider”) concerned with the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public (for payment or not) must not discriminate against a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.
2. “A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, discriminate against a person (B)—
   • as to the terms on which A provides the service to B;
   • by terminating the provision of the service to B;
   • by subjecting B to any other detriment.”

Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance

Sections 4.91–4.100 of the recently updated EHRC Code of practice for services, public functions and associations explain the law on belief discrimination:

“4.91 Less favourable treatment which is either because a person holds a religious or other protected belief, or because they have expressed such a belief, will normally constitute unlawful direct discrimination. This is the case even if the service provider, body exercising public functions or association, or a third party, objects to the belief or expression of the belief.”

The code makes clear that discriminating against someone because of a negative stereotype of people who share their belief is direct discrimination. This includes the stereotype that it is “transphobic” to hold or express “gender critical” beliefs: 

“4.100 Examples of stereotypes in relation to religion or belief are that persons who hold or manifest certain gender-critical beliefs necessarily have negative attitudes towards trans people… The judgment explains that: ‘it may be that some persons who hold / manifest such beliefs have such animus, but it is stereotyping to assume that all do’.” 

It is an unfounded stereotype that someone who has expressed the reasonable belief that men should not be allowed to use female-only services is “transphobic”. The code makes clear that service providers cannot lawfully permit trans-identifying people to use spaces or services for the opposite sex:

“13.130 If a service provider… admits trans people to a service intended for the opposite sex, then it can no longer rely on the [single-sex and separate-sex exceptions]. This means that if a service is provided only to women and trans women or only to men and trans men, it is not a separate-sex or single-sex service under the Equality Act 2010. 

“13.131 A service like this is very likely to amount to unlawful sex discrimination against the people of the opposite sex who are not allowed to use it. A service which is provided to women and trans women could also be unlawful sex discrimination or lead to unlawful harassment against women who use the service. Similar considerations would apply to a service provided for men and trans men. 13.107 …It is likely to be reasonable for a woman to object to the presence of a man if she will be getting undressed or in a vulnerable situation when she is using the service.”

Service providers may be legally liable for gender-critical belief discrimination committed by staff:

“3.50 Service providers… need to take steps to ensure that discrimination, harassment and victimisation is not occurring.

“3.51 A service provider… will be liable for unlawful acts committed by their employees unless they have taken reasonable steps to prevent such acts.”

Legal cases

Gender-critical beliefs have been confirmed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (Forstater v CGDE [2021] UKEAT 2021) as being philosophical beliefs covered by Section 10(2). This also applies for the purpose of service provision. This judgment was endorsed by the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC. 

The Forstater case and subsequent case law have established that statements of belief to the following effect, among others, are protected under this definition and are “worthy of respect in a democratic society”:

• that, as a matter of scientific fact, sex is biologically immutable
• that there are only two sexes
• that it is impossible to change sex
• that sex matters – in particular that it is important to be able to talk about sex in order to take action against the discrimination, violence and oppression that still affect women and girls because they were born female
• that male individuals who identify as “trans women” are and remain men
• that female individuals who identify as “trans men” are and remain women.

This belief is also in line with biology, and with the definition of sex (man/woman, male/female) in UK law, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC. 

It has been established by case law that direct discrimination in relation to belief also includes discriminatory action in response to “manifestation” of a protected philosophical belief, such as a speech act, social-media post or the wearing of a T-shirt or other garment associated with the belief. (See most recently Higgs v Farmor’s School [2025] EWCA Civ 109.) 

It has also been established in law that direct discrimination includes “stereotyping” in the context of belief. This is where a decision-maker takes action based on a stereotype that persons who hold or manifest a belief share attributes of a group which they might not in fact possess, for example that individuals expressing gender-critical beliefs are are likely to undertake unlawful harassment of or discrimination against people based on the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, or to deny their human rights. (See most recently Higgs v Farmor’s School [2025] EWCA Civ 109). 

It is well established that the definition of direct discrimination under s.13 does not require someone actually to possess the protected characteristic in question. If they are perceived as possessing that characteristic and treated less favourably because of that perception, that will constitute direct discrimination or harassment (Chief Constable of Norfolk Constabulary v Coffey [2020] ICR 148, CA, §11 per Underhill LJ; FWS, §249). Indeed, even if they are not actually perceived as possessing the protected characteristic in question but are treated less favourably because they are associated with it, that will suffice (English v Thomas Sanderson Ltd [2009] ICR 543, CA, §§37-40 per Sedley LJ; §§45-46 per Lawrence Collins LJ).

The [refusal to serve me / decision to ban me / other discriminatory action] was clearly in relation to my being known to hold gender-critical beliefs.

The [materials on display / other indirectly discriminatory action or situation] constituted indirect discrimination against people who hold gender-critical beliefs, and cannot be objectively justified.

This represents [direct / indirect] belief discrimination against me. 

I am requesting an apology and a sum of £[X] in compensation for my injury to feelings.

The amount I am claiming for injury to feelings is [describe where it sits in relation to the Vento bands, for example “in the lower Vento band, and substantially less than I can expect to recover if the matter proceeds to court”]. It is set in order to achieve a speedy resolution, which is in the interests of all parties. It takes into account that:

• [List again in brief any factors that exacerbated the effect of the discrimination.]

I would also like you to [apologise / change your policy / train staff not to repeat the discrimination].

I would like a reply as soon as possible so that I know you have received this letter. If you do not agree to the amount claimed, please send me a detailed response saying why you do not agree.

To avoid taking court action, I am willing to use Alternative Dispute Resolution to resolve this problem.

If I do not receive a satisfactory response from you within 21 days of the date of this letter, I intend to issue proceedings against you in the county court without further notice. This may increase your liability for costs.

I refer you to the Practice Direction on pre-action conduct under the Civil Procedure Rules, and in particular to paragraphs 13–16, which set out the sanctions the court may impose if you fail to comply with the Practice Direction.

I look forward to your acknowledgement by reply to [your email address].

Regards

[your name]

Subject: Request for urgent review of programme criteria

I am writing to express concern about the eligibility criteria for [programme name], which breach equality law in Britain, and to request that you amend them urgently to bring the programme into compliance. [Add evidence – for example: Your website says that the competition aims to encourage girls to study mathematics but then says that it is open to all “female-identifying students” in the UK in the specified school years.]

As you may be aware, the UK Supreme Court judgment in the case of For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers, handed down on 16th April 2025, confirmed that “the words “sex”, “woman” and “man” in sections 11 and 212(1) mean (and were always intended to mean) biological sex, biological woman and biological man.” .

Your [material] declares an intention to treat the group [“self defined women”, “female identifying students”] more favourably than those who are not “self-defined women”. Your criteria relate to two groups:

• Group A: includes most females (who have not identified as something else) and males who identify as female.
• Group B: includes most males (who do not identify as female) and females who do not identify as female (for example they may identify as “trans men” or “non binary”).

These are what the Supreme Court referred to as “complex, heterogenous groupings” (at §172 and §239): they do not share a protected characteristic. 

Your selection criteria declare an intention to subject group B to less favourable treatment than group A. This amounts to:

• direct sex discrimination against men or boys, who are discriminated against on the basis of their sex
• direct gender-reassignment discrimination against women or girls who have or are associated with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (who may identify as “trans men” or “non binary”). 

It does not matter that not all men are in the less favoured group, or that not all people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment are. It is not a requirement in a direct-discrimination case that all members of a class sharing a protected characteristic be treated less favourably (see R (Coll) v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] 1 WLR 2093 t §30).

Direct discrimination based on a protected characteristic (other than age) cannot be justified. It requires a statutory exception in order to be lawful. 

Section 158 “positive action” provides an exception to the general prohibition on direct discrimination to enable people who share a particular protected characteristic to be treated more favourably than people who do not, in order to overcome disadvantages.

This statutory exception is not available for a programme targeting this heterogeneous group as they do not share a protected characteristic. This was the core finding of the For Women Scotland case (which related to positive action for securing gender balance on Scottish public boards). 

To be lawful provisions in favour of women must exclude those who are biologically male.

As a public authority, you are also bound by the public-sector equality duty at section 149. This requires due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. 

Core to the Supreme Court’s judgment was the finding that where positive action is undertaken to address disadvantage or under-representation faced by women this relates to biological females. As the judgment sets out at paragraph 241:

“In the case of both sets of provisions [positive action and PSED] the purpose of addressing the particular needs, disadvantages or participation levels of women as a group with the protected characteristic of sex, is undermined if women as a group includes trans women… (in other words, biological men…).”

This means that men or boys who identify as women or girls cannot be lawfully included in the category of people to benefit from positive action to meet the needs of women or girls. 

Setting eligibility criteria which do not match with the protected characteristics exposes [name of organisation] to the risk of legal action for unlawful discrimination [if it is a public body, add and for acting outside its statutory powers, procedural impropriety and irrational decision-making]. In relation to the similar policy of the Scottish Government (concerning positive action towards women on public boards) the Supreme Court ruled that the policy was irrational. 

I hope you find this information helpful, and await your speedy reply confirming that [name of organisation] has brought the entry criteria for the [programme or award] into compliance with UK law. This requires making it clear to all stakeholders that entry is open only to (biological) girls – that is, people born female.

I likewise request that you amend all publicity material to reflect the legal position, and get back in touch with anyone who has previously received publicity material about the programme to make clear that eligibility is based on being female, not identifying as female.

Subject: Request for review of workplace changing-rooms policy

Dear [Manager’s name / Human resources department]

I am writing to raise concerns about the [current / proposed] provision of changing rooms in our workplace. I do so with the intention of seeking clarity and ensuring our compliance with legal obligations.

Under the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, employers are required to provide “suitable and sufficient” changing facilities for workers where it is necessary to wear special clothing for work and to remove more than outer clothing. This requirement includes providing separate facilities for men and women. Accordingly, there is a requirement to provide a separate women’s changing room in all situations except where there are adequate lockable individual changing rooms of sufficient capacity and provided with seating. These obligations are not optional and are legally binding. 

The Equality Act 2010 protects employees from discrimination and harassment on the basis of sex and belief. The UK Supreme Court clarified in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers (April 2025) that “single-sex” means biological sex. This position has been reinforced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and has direct implications for how workplace changing rooms are designated and used.

• Facilities marked as single-sex must be restricted to people of that biological sex.
• Permitting use based on gender identity invalidates single-sex provision. As a result, employers which permit this are not compliant with their obligations under the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
• Trans individuals must be provided for but not at the expense of removing single-sex access for others.
• Employers should ensure they have a lawful, clear, and consistently applied policy.

To support this, I am attaching a factsheet outlining employer responsibilities under UK law.

I am aware of current workplace [policies] [and training] that state that individuals may use facilities based on gender identity rather than biological sex. This undermines the lawful provision of single-sex facilities, and is a breach of Regulation 24 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. 

I believe that this should be reviewed in the light of current legislation, building regulations and case law including Earl Shilton Town Council v Miller, which found that forcing women to share space with male colleagues in inadequate facilities amounted to direct sex discrimination. It is also indirectly discriminatory, and creates a hostile working environment for women.

I am concerned about [insert specific issue: the relabelling of single-sex changing rooms as gender-neutral, the removal of separate male and female changing rooms, ambiguous signage]. This creates uncertainty and anxiety for many employees, particularly women and religious minorities, and breaches legal requirements.

I respectfully request that [company name]:

• reviews its policies and signage relating to changing rooms use
• confirms that single-sex facilities are designated for use based on biological sex only
• considers whether an equality impact assessment has been completed
• ensures that any unisex or “gender-neutral” facilities are additional and are fully enclosed and clearly marked.

I am aware that since the Supreme Court ruling and the EHRC’s updated guidance, there has been a significant amount of public disinformation from organisations such as Stonewall and the Good Law Project suggesting that the ruling is not yet the law or the guidance is unlawful. These claims are inaccurate and the legal position is that while trans individuals are protected under the characteristic of gender reassignment, the lawful provision of single-sex spaces based on biological sex is both permitted and in many cases required. 

It is essential that workplace policies are based on the law and not on ideological misinformation.

I hope this matter can be addressed informally in the first instance, but I reserve the right to escalate the concern through formal grievance channels if necessary.

I have attempted to resolve this informally by [briefly state what steps you’ve taken, such as “raising the issue with my manager on [date]”], but the matter remains unresolved. I am therefore submitting this letter as a formal grievance under the organisation’s grievance policy.

I look forward to a written response within seven days or in accordance with the company’s procedures. Please let me know if you require any further information or would like to arrange a meeting.

Subject: Request for review of workplace toilet facilities policy

Dear [Manager’s name / Human resources department]

I am writing to raise concerns about the [current / proposed] provision of toilet facilities in our workplace. I do so with the intention of seeking clarity and ensuring our compliance with legal obligations.

Under the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, employers are required to provide “suitable and sufficient” sanitary conveniences. This includes providing separate facilities for men and women, except where each convenience is in a self-contained room with a door that can be secured from the inside. These obligations are not optional and are legally binding.

The Equality Act 2010 protects employees from discrimination and harassment on the basis of sex and belief. The UK Supreme Court clarified in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers (April 2025) that “single-sex” means biological sex. This position has been reinforced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and has direct implications for how workplace toilet facilities are designated and used.

• Facilities marked as single-sex must be restricted to people of that biological sex.
• Permitting use based on gender identity invalidates single-sex provision.
• Trans individuals must be provided for but not at the expense of removing single-sex access for others.
• Employers should ensure they have a lawful, clear, and consistently applied policy.

To support this, I am attaching a factsheet outlining employer responsibilities under UK law.

I am aware of current workplace [policies] [and training] that state that individuals may use facilities based on gender identity rather than biological sex. This undermines the lawful provision of single-sex facilities and may result in indirect discrimination or harassment.

I believe that this should be reviewed in the light of current legislation, workplace safety regulations and case law including Earl Shilton Town Council v Miller, which found that forcing women to share space with male colleagues in inadequate facilities amounted to direct sex discrimination.

I am concerned about [insert specific issue: the relabelling of single-sex toilets as gender-neutral, the removal of separate male and female toilets, ambiguous signage]. This creates uncertainty and anxiety for many employees, particularly women and religious minorities, and breaches legal requirements.

Since October 2024, England’s Building Regulations (Schedule 1, Requirement T1) require single-sex toilets in all new-builds and refurbishments wherever space allows. This makes the legal expectations around separate provision even more explicit.

I respectfully request that [company name]:
• reviews its policies and signage relating to toilet use
• confirms that single-sex facilities are designated for use based on biological sex only
• considers whether an equality impact assessment has been completed
• ensures that any unisex or “gender-neutral” facilities are additional and are fully enclosed and clearly marked.

I am aware that since the Supreme Court ruling and the EHRC’s updated guidance, there has been a significant amount of public disinformation from organisations such as Stonewall and the Good Law Project suggesting that the ruling is not yet the law or the guidance is unlawful. These claims are inaccurate and the legal position is that while trans individuals are protected under the characteristic of gender reassignment, the lawful provision of single-sex spaces based on biological sex is both permitted and in many cases required. 

It is essential that workplace policies are based on the law and not on ideological misinformation.

I hope this matter can be addressed informally in the first instance, but I reserve the right to escalate the concern through formal grievance channels if necessary.

I have attempted to resolve this informally by [briefly state what steps you’ve taken, such as “raising the issue with my manager on [date]”], but the matter remains unresolved. I am therefore submitting this letter as a formal grievance under the organisation’s grievance policy.

I look forward to a written response within seven days or in accordance with the company’s procedures. Please let me know if you require any further information or would like to arrange a meeting.

As you may know, on 16th April 2025 the Supreme Court handed down judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16. The court held that for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 “woman” means a biological woman and “sex” means biological sex. Accordingly where separate-sex services are provided they must be provided based on biological sex. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has issued an interim update to support this: see https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/interim-update-practical-implications-uk-supreme-court-judgment

I am concerned that your policy on provision of [toilet / changing / washing / sleeping] facilities based on gender self-identity is unlawful, and puts women and girls in particular at risk of harassment. I am writing to ask for reassurance that you will bring the policy into line with the law as soon as possible by issuing a simple, clear statement that facilities are provided based on biological sex. 

There are toilets labelled male, female and unisex, but there is no clear written policy (for example on your website) which explains that this is by biological sex.

There are changing rooms labelled Men and Women, but your published policy states that these are managed on the basis of gender self-identity: [link to or quote from the policy]

I spoke to a member of staff and was told that trans-identifying individuals are allowed to use the sleeping accommodation of their choice.

Following the Supreme Court judgment, you issued a statement on your [intranet / website / social media] that said: [quote or give link]

This policy means that the following circumstances arise: 

• some women and girls will self-exclude because of the policy or because of bad experiences 
• men who identify as transgender or non-binary (or who say they do) may use the women’s facilities
• women and girls may encounter and be alarmed, humiliated or made to feel embarrassed or uncomfortable by men in the women’s facilities
• women who know about the policy may feel frightened knowing that a trans-identifying man may be present or appear, and that complaints and concerns are likely to be ignored 
• women and girls are at risk of voyeurism, indecent exposure and sexual harassment from men using women’s facilities.

The Supreme Court judgment has clarified at paragraph 264 (emphasis added):

“This examination of the language of the EA 2010 , its context and purpose, demonstrate that the words ‘sex’, ‘woman’ and ‘man’ in sections 11 and 212(1) mean (and were always intended to mean) biological sex, biological woman and biological man. These and the other provisions to which we have referred cannot properly be interpreted as also extending to include certificated sex without rendering them incoherent and unworkable.”

While it is true that the EHRC is now consulting on an updated code of practice for service providers, this does not entitle you to postpone revising unlawful policies. Whatever the final EHRC guidance says, it will not (and could not) encourage actions which are unlawful under the Equality Act 2010. 

It is well recognised that forcing women to share spaces with men where they are undressing puts women at a particular disadvantage because: 

• women are in general more fearful of men than men are of women
• women are in general at greater risk of violence at the hands of men than men are of violence at the hands of women
• the risk of seeing a male in a state of undress or being seen by a male undressed engages the vulnerability, privacy and dignity rights of women, and women have a greater taboo around nudity and a well-founded sense of vulnerability to men, much more than the other way round
• men are statistically more likely to be guilty of crimes of violence, sexual assault, indecent exposure, and voyeurism than women
• women in general feel (and have enforced against them) taboos about physical modesty more powerfully than men.

These disadvantages are not controversial and are central to the rationale for the customary division of the sexes in public facilities where women and girls are in a state of undress or are otherwise physically vulnerable; they can give rise to direct and indirect discrimination or harassment claims.

I am asking you to issue a clarification statement to make clear to everyone that facilities are provided based on biological sex. 

By way of example, the Houses of Parliament recently added the following statement to its visitor information: 

“Members of the public should use facilities that correspond to their biological sex or the gender-neutral toilets.” (https://www.parliament.uk/visiting/access/facilities/toilets/)

Issuing such a statement would bring an end to the confusion and provide to women (and men) the safe single-sex spaces to which they have a lawful entitlement. 

Please confirm, therefore, within 14 days of the date of this letter that [name of organisation]:

• accepts that where services are provided separately to women and men they must be provided on a biological sex basis
• will issue a statement that clarifies that access to single-sex facilities is on the basis of biological sex
• will explain to individuals who have previously been told that they may use opposite-sex facilities that this is not permitted, and they will be directed in future towards appropriate facilities (such as a unisex option)
• will not remove separate-sex facilities in general and replace them with all “gender-neutral” (unisex). 

I look forward to hearing from you within the timescale set out above. I will be sending the response to Sex Matters and may seek support from them to take the next steps towards legal action if the policy remains unlawful.

[I understand / In response to my inquiries I have been told] that [name of organisation] intends to convert all [toilets/ changing rooms] to unisex or gender-neutral, in response to the recent Supreme Court ruling that sex means biological sex in the Equality Act. 

This approach is ill-advised and may expose the organisation to legal action. I request that single-sex provision be retained. A mixture of single-sex and unisex may be an appropriate and lawful option but removing all, or even the majority of, single-sex provision is not inclusive. 

Most people prefer separate-sex facilities, and they are particularly important for women. Since the organisation has previously provided separate facilities for men and women, it clearly recognises that this is the case. It would therefore appear irrational to remove such provision.

Replacing separate-sex facilities with fully enclosed “superloos” with the handbasins inside gives privacy, but will mean that fewer people can go to the toilet in the same time and space. Women in particular feel less comfortable in unisex facilities. Waiting in line for unisex toilets is an uncomfortable situation for many women, even if the hand basins are inside the toilet rooms. They may be forced to queue with men in a small enclosed space. Small spaces with floor-to-ceiling partitions are oppressive and can feel more unsafe than the traditional single-sex cubicles, because users don’t know who is outside the door, and a woman could get pushed into a cubicle. Someone facing a medical emergency cannot easily call for help or communicate with people outside the door, nor can people outside see a user who has had a seizure or lost consciousness.

Locks on public toilets are often faulty, or might be opened by children. This is a minor embarrassment in a single-sex washroom, but much more humiliating in a mixed-sex facility. Mixed-sex toilets and changing rooms also provide more opportunities for accidental-on-purpose exposure – a man may leave the door unlocked on purpose so that a woman accidentally opens it and sees him with his trousers down.

Ordinary, well-designed, single-sex facilities have features such as vestibules and corner turns at the entrance which put two layers of physical boundary between a woman or girl on the toilet and a man who might be loitering nearby. This makes such facilities both feel safer and actually be safer, and deters opportunistic voyeurism and exposure.

Single-sex toilets with traditional cubicles are also places where parents (most often women) can supervise children more easily, because they, or a sibling, can monitor and reassure each other without having to be inside the cubicle together. Many women have had the experience of going to the toilet with the door ajar and a baby buggy wedged into it. 

Buildings in England are also subject to building regulations set out in Approved Document T, which makes the provision of separate-sex facilities the norm for new-builds and refurbishments. 

I request that [name of organisation] considers the impact on women (as well as on religious, disabled and older users, and on parents with children), and reconsiders this proposed change.

Full conversion to unisex creates legal jeopardy

For all these reasons, replacing single-sex provision with all-unisex could give rise to claims for indirect sex discrimination, since women are likely to suffer a detriment as a result, and to claims for harassment, since it creates a hostile and degrading environment for women in which voyerism, indecent exposure and sexual harassment become more likely.

As a public body you are covered by the public-sector equality duty and are required to consider how your policies affect people with different protected characteristics, including sex and religion or belief, as well as gender reassignment. While some people prefer a gender-neutral option, it is not proportionate to remove all separate-sex facilities.

Please confirm, therefore, within 14 days of the date of this letter that [name of organisation] will not remove separate-sex facilities in general and replace them with all “gender-neutral” (unisex). 

I look forward to hearing from you within the timescale set out above. I will be sending the response to Sex Matters and may seek support from them to take the next steps towards legal action if the current proposal is not reversed.

Hi everyone.

You’ve probably already heard about the Supreme Court’s clarification on the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 (https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0042). On 16th April it ruled that in equality and anti-discrimination law, “sex” means biological sex, not gender identity. As a result, we’ve updated our HR policy on single-sex spaces. [INSERT LINK]

In short: The new policy says that all designated single-sex spaces in [insert company name] premises are available only to people of that biological sex. From today, none of us can use any of our facilities that are designated as for the opposite sex. We’ve made sure we have unisex, single-user alternatives. 

This policy change keeps us compliant with the law. The Supreme Court clarified the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act. It did not change the law or write a new law. It set out what is, and has been since 2010, the correct interpretation of the law. It is the UK’s highest legal authority, and this judgment overrides any previous guidance or interpretation of the Equality Act. 

Like many organisations, we based our policy concerning access to single-sex spaces on what we now know to have been a misinterpretation of the law. Our legal team has scrutinised the Supreme Court decision closely and updated our policy to comply with it. If we hadn’t done this, we would now be in violation of equality and anti-discrimination law, as well as workplace regulations about single-sex toilets and changing rooms. This would have opened us up to legal and financial risk. As a responsible company that takes legal responsibilities and human rights seriously, we knew that updating our policy was the right thing to do.

This change doesn’t remove any of our protections against discrimination or harassment. The judgment was based on careful consideration of anti-discrimination law. The Supreme Court decided that taking “sex” to mean “biological sex” was the only legally coherent approach that protects the human rights of everyone, whatever their sex or gender identity. 

As the court pointed out, if you’re trans, you’re still protected under the characteristic of “gender reassignment”. Having this protected characteristic does not change a person’s sex, and does not give anyone the right to use spaces that are provided for the opposite sex. The Supreme Court ruled that having a gender-recognition certificate doesn’t give people this right either. Our updated policy continues to make clear that we won’t tolerate discrimination or harassment of any kind.

As the Equality and Human Rights Commission has emphasised (https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/interim-update-practical-implications-uk-supreme-court-judgment), everyone must have access to suitable facilities at work. We have reviewed ours, and are satisfied that we have sufficient unisex, single-user alternatives to accommodate people who do not feel comfortable in single-sex facilities for their own sex. We have improved signage to help everyone find facilities that suit them. These clear rules apply to and protect visitors to our premises as well. 

Please read the new policy in full to find out how it will work and where single-user, unisex facilities are located. If you have any further questions, please drop us an email or come see us in HR. 

Thanks,

[INSERT NAME]

HR Director