What has actually changed?
Following the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers — which confirmed that “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex — the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has updated its statutory Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations. This is the first full update since 2011. The updated draft Code was laid before Parliament on 21 May 2026.
Does this Code apply to workplaces, or just public-facing venues?
The Code applies to service providers, public bodies and associations — not employers directly. Employment is covered separately by the Equality Act’s employment provisions and the Health and Safety (Workplace) Regulations 1992. However:
- The Supreme Court’s ruling on the meaning of “sex” applies across the whole Act, including employment.
- A separate EHRC Employment Code exists but hasn’t been updated since 2015; the EHRC has indicated updating it in full is “laborious,” so interim workplace guidance may follow instead.
We already have an accessible toilet — does that solve the problem?
It can help. A common, EHRC-endorsed model is separate-sex toilets for men and women, plus an accessible/baby-changing toilet that also serves as a general-use facility for anyone who doesn’t want to use a sex-specific toilet. Whether this is sufficient depends on the size and resources of the site and the needs of all users — it should be kept under review rather than treated as a one-off fix.
What about trans employees, customers or visitors — what provision should we make?
- Trans people remain protected from direct and indirect gender-reassignment discrimination, harassment, and discrimination by perception or association — this hasn’t changed.
- If a service provider allows trans people to use single-sex facilities of the opposite sex to their biological sex, that facility risks no longer qualifying for the “single-sex service” exception under the Act, and could itself be legally exposed to discrimination claims from other users.
- The recommended approach is to also provide a separate, self-contained, lockable facility (e.g. an accessible or “mixed-sex” toilet) that anyone — including trans individuals — can use if they don’t wish to use the single-sex facility matching their biological sex.
- Leaving a trans person with no usable facility at all is likely to expose an organisation to a discrimination claim.
What does the Code say about single-sex toilets specifically?
The Code confirms that where single-sex facilities are provided — toilets, changing rooms, and some sports or accommodation facilities — access should generally be based on biological sex, not gender identity, and a Gender Recognition Certificate does not change this for Equality Act purposes.
Does this mean every building must remove mixed-sex or gender-neutral toilets?
No — the Code doesn’t mandate single-sex provision everywhere. The starting point for most services remains that mixed-sex facilities can be lawful. Where an organisation chooses to provide single-sex facilities, it must be able to justify that choice as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (e.g. privacy, dignity, safety) and should consider less restrictive alternatives.
Do schools, universities and other public bodies need to do anything different?
Yes — these are “service providers” under the Act. The Code expects institutions to review toilet, changing room, and accommodation policies, ensure single-sex facilities (where provided) are genuinely restricted by biological sex, and provide alternative provision for trans students/staff. Several universities have already begun policy audits.
Is there a “safe” default layout you’d recommend?
There’s no single universal answer, but a commonly cited compliant model is:
- Separate men’s and women’s washrooms (biological sex basis).
- One additional accessible/mixed-use facility, usable by anyone, including for baby changing and as an alternative to the sex-specific rooms.
Does converting to individual lockable cubicles (rather than open plan) change our legal position?
It can help. A bank of individual, fully enclosed, lockable cubicles with independent entry (rather than a shared open washroom with a bank of stalls) reduces some of the privacy and safety concerns that drive the single-sex requirement and is one of the “less intrusive alternatives” the Code asks providers to consider. It doesn’t automatically remove all risk, but it’s a commonly recommended design mitigation
Can a customer or employee bring a legal claim directly over our washroom setup?
Potentially, yes — either a customer (under the Equality Act’s service provision rules) or an employee (under employment/health and safety law) could bring a claim if they believe they’ve faced discrimination or an unsafe environment. This is why documenting your reasoning (Q9) matters: a proportionate, evidenced decision is much easier to defend than an undocumented or inconsistent one.
Does the EHRC itself investigate or fine businesses directly?
The EHRC can investigate, provide guidance, and in some cases take enforcement action or intervene in litigation, but individual discrimination claims are generally brought by the affected person through an employment tribunal or the county court, not directly by the EHRC. The Code is used by courts and tribunals as a reference point when deciding such cases.
We operate across multiple sites/franchises — do we need a single company-wide policy?
A consistent baseline approach is sensible for brand consistency and risk management, but the Code expects proportionality assessed on a case-by-case, site-by-site basis (space, footfall, existing layout, user needs). A single rigid policy applied identically everywhere without considering individual site circumstances may itself be harder to defend than a documented framework applied consistently but sensitively at each location.
What should our signage say?
Signage should clearly and accurately describe what the facility is — e.g. “Women,” “Men,” or “Accessible / All Users” — rather than ambiguous wording that doesn’t match the actual access policy. Signage claiming a room is “single sex” when it’s operated on a mixed basis (or vice versa) creates both a compliance risk and user confusion.
We run a gym/leisure facility with changing rooms and showers — does the same logic apply?
Yes, and arguably with sharper focus, since undressing and showering raise higher privacy and safety expectations. The Code treats changing rooms and showers similarly to toilets: single-sex provision should be on a biological sex basis if offered, with alternative provision (e.g. private cubicles or a separate changing room) available for anyone who needs it.
What are the risks of not acting?
Both directions carry legal risk: providing single-sex facilities without justification or with no alternative for trans users can amount to unlawful discrimination. The safest position is a documented, proportionate approach reviewed against current guidance.
Where does Dunhams fit into all this?
We can’t give legal advice, but we can help with the practical side once you (or your advisers) have decided on your policy: reconfiguring washroom layouts, converting open-plan cubicle banks into fully lockable individual units, adding or repositioning accessible/universal facilities, and updating signage to accurately reflect your access policy.
