EAT: inadequate toilet provision is direct sex discrimination

In Earl Shilton Town Council v Miller [2023] EAT 5, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruled that inadequate toilet provision is direct sex discrimination.

The town council operated from a Methodist Church building that also hosts a playgroup. The men’s toilets were in the part of the building used by the council, but the women’s toilets were in the part used for the playgroup. Female employees had to attract the attention of staff if they wanted to use the toilets and wait until they had been checked to see if a child was present.

The town clerk then offered female employees the use of the men’s toilets, but there was a risk of a man entering the facility and a woman seeing a man using the urinal. The men’s toilets initially had no sanitary bin. Eventually the council provided one, as well as a lock on the exterior door to prevent men entering when a woman was using the facilities, but the claimant had to request that the bin was emptied. The EAT made clear that “this is the type of treatment that constitutes direct sex discrimination” (see page 12 for full details).