A panel has determined that a town council’s improvised gender-neutral restrooms discriminated against a female clerk.
Karen Miller was instructed to post a sign on the men’s restroom door whenever she used it.
In order to reach the lone cubicle, she had to pass a urinal. Even the Earl Shilton Council in Leicestershire had to give her with a sanitary bin.
In 2020, Ms. Miller won a claim for sex discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal has recently dismissed a council’s appeal.
Judge James Tayler ruled that Ms. Miller was not supplied with suitable facilities due to the possibility of encountering a man using the urinal and the absence of a sanitary waste container.
He stated, “This treatment was inferior to that accorded to men.”
Judge Taylor continued, ‘The risk of a lady seeing a male using the urinals is certainly different from the risk of a man seeing another guy using the urinals.
Due to the possibility of encountering a man using the urinal and the absence of a sanitary bin, the claimant was not provided with bathroom facilities that met her requirements.
This week’s published verdict was quickly pounced upon by women’s rights activists who have been attempting to prevent public bodies and businesses from replacing separate male and female restrooms with “gender-neutral” ones in an effort to be more accepting of transgender persons.
Maya Forstater, who won a landmark employment case protecting the right to express ‘gender-critical’ views in 2021, told the Mail last night: ‘This case should serve as a wake-up call to employers and service providers who seem to have forgotten that the majority of people prefer to use the restroom in private from the opposite sex.
“No woman or girl should have to walk past the urinals to reach the restroom, and no man should have to worry about being passed by a woman.”
Even in the smallest buildings, it is possible to have adequate amenities, and in larger buildings, having separate rooms for ladies, gentlemen, and a unisex option ensures that everyone is accommodated.
Employment law expert Jason Braier, a barrister at 42 Bedford Row chambers, stated, “The decision does not establish a precedent, but rather applies well-established Equality Act principles against treating one sex inherently less favorably than the other.”
However, it will be fascinating to watch if the publicity surrounding this case promotes further allegations of sex discrimination based on toilets.
»Gender-neutral toilet ‘was more beneficial to men’ says judge«