Taxpayers face huge bill for women denied single sex changing rooms

Taxpayers face a massive bill to compensate female public sector workers over the failure to provide single-sex toilets and changing rooms, it was warned yesterday.

The NHS and a host of other organisations are at risk of demands for thousands of pounds to settle harassment claims by women who fell foul of unlawful ‘trans inclusion’ policies.

It comes after the Supreme Court stated last month that the legal definition of a woman is based solely on biological sex rather than gender choices in a major victory for feminist campaigners.

But there are now warnings that female employees will be able to launch legal challenges – arguing that having to share facilities with trans women amounts to harassment.

Last night Scottish Tory equalities spokesman Tess White said: ‘The Supreme Court ruling didn’t rewrite the law, it simply reinforced what we already knew – biological women have a legal right to access single-sex spaces.

‘This isn’t hard to understand, it’s basic common sense. Instead of upholding the law, John Swinney is still pandering to gender extremists and leaving the door open to more costly lawsuits that the taxpayer will pay for.

‘Enough is enough – he must urgently issue a clear public sector directive requiring organisations to uphold the law.’

Naomi Cunningham, the barrister representing nurse Sandie Peggie in her employment tribunal case against NHS Fife, told the Mail: ‘The Supreme Court ruling will be seismic in its effect and one of the potential consequences is that organisations which have pursued “trans inclusive” policies could face harassment claims.

Tess White said biological women have a legal right to access single-sex spaces.

‘Those public sector bodies such as the NHS – and private companies which have policies allowing trans women to use female toilets and threaten women with disciplinary action if they complain – for example, could be seen to have created policies designed to intimidate their entire female workforce.

‘If employers were able to demonstrate that they were changing their policies as a result of the Supreme Court ruling, it may act as a mitigation – but it wouldn’t get them off the hook.

‘The Supreme Court ruling did not change the law – it revealed the law as it always was, and as it always should have been interpreted. An employee has three months to launch a tribunal claim and could do so on the basis of harassment due to trans inclusion policies which they believe discriminated against them.’

There were also concerns last night that some public liability or employer insurance policies could be invalidated.

For example, the insurance policy for a football club may no longer cover a female footballer who is injured in a tackle by a trans woman – a biological male.

Ms Cunningham said ‘as a matter of great urgency’, organisations should check their policies to ensure full compliance.

A Scottish Government spokesman said: ‘Following publication of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) interim update [following the Supreme Court ruling], ministers have written to the EHRC to ask them to confirm that they agree that no public body, service provider or other association should issue specific guidance before the EHRC code of practice and guidance is finalised.

‘As the EHRC is the enforcer and regulator of the Equality Act, we expect all organisations to consider its revised code of practice and guidance when published to ensure there is a consistent and clear understanding of the correct application of the law for all involved in this complex area.’