In reporting on the Employment Tribunal ruling against the NHS the other day on allowing men into women’s facilities, I wondered if the fact the claimant was Muslim had got the verdict over the line. “It’s not just Muslim women who object to men in women’s spaces”.
Legal feminist clarifies.
The claimant is a Muslim woman with PTSD from sexual abuse. She complained that NHSE’s policy of letting men use women’s facilities was indirect discrimination related to three protected characteristics sex, disability (her PTSD) and religion or belief (her Muslim faith).
She won on indirect discrimination related to sex: the policy did put women at a particular disadvantage compared to men, and NHSE couldn’t justify it.
She lost on indirect discrimination related to disability and religion or belief.
This means that anyone rolling their eyes and saying “why are Muslim women entitled to more privacy than any other woman?” or “so we have to disclose past abuse for the most basic privacy?” is missing the point. That’s exactly what this judgment doesn’t say.
The claimant in this case happens to be a Muslim, and to have a history of sexual abuse. But she didn’t win because of those characteristics.
She won because she’s a woman, and letting people use “single-sex” facilities on the basis of gender identity not sex puts the whole class of women at a particular disadvantage compared to men.
This is not “case law,” because ETs don’t make law. But it’s an indication of the level of risk run by organisations that continue to operate these policies.
C didn’t win because of anything unusual about her case. She won because she’s a woman whose employer’s policy meant she couldn’t trust the sign on the door.
Mick Hartley 
Leave a comment