header-logo header-logo

16 April 2025
Categories: Legal News , Equality
printer mail-detail

Landmark ruling on Equality Act definition of ‘man’ and ‘woman’

The Supreme Court has held unanimously that the terms ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010) ‘refer to a biological woman and biological sex’

In For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16 this week, the court was asked to clarify the effect of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 on the interpretation of the terms ‘sex’, ‘man’, ‘woman, ‘male’ and ‘female’ in the Equality Act. The central question posed was whether the Equality Act ‘treats a trans woman with a GRC [gender recognition certificate] as a woman for all purposes within the scope of its provisions, or when that Act speaks of a "woman" and "sex" it is referring to a biological woman and biological sex’.

In a lengthy lead judgment, Lord Hodge and Ladies Rose and Simler said: ‘It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word "woman" other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010.’

They concluded that a biological definition of ‘sex’, referring to the sex identified at birth, ‘would not have the effect of disadvantaging or removing important protection under the EA 2010 from trans people (whether with or without a GRC)’.

The Justices emphasised that the EA 2010, which covers the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’, will continue to protect trans people from discrimination and harassment. They also counselled ‘against reading this judgment as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another, it is not’.

Employment lawyer, Polly O’Malley, partner at Browne Jacobson, suggested senior leaders pause and take stock before reacting to the ruling.

‘Whenever a Supreme Court judgment signals a new interpretation of the law, it doesn’t necessarily follow that policies and processes used by organisations are automatically now incorrectly applied—indeed, many will remain just as important and any knee-jerk reaction could cause more harm than good.

‘Given the Supreme Court has upheld the protection of transgender individuals from discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment, employers should tread carefully and ensure they continue to promote a culture of openness and respect between employees, underpinned by internal training that helps to eliminate hidden bias.

‘For any business or publicly-facing organisation guidance should be reviewed and potentially updated to reaffirm the importance of when and how it is appropriate for personal opinions to be expressed within the workplace or environment in which activities take place.’

Employment lawyer Hina Belitz, partner at Excello Law, said the ruling ‘will inevitably lead to some thorny issues, for instance, a biological woman who transitions to male and receives a gender recognition certificate for doing so—if this person were to become pregnant, how will the law treat parental leave as maternity and paternity leave are differentiated in the law?’ However, she added that ‘it’s more likely that much of the rights in the Equality Act 2010 such as sexual harassment will be unaffected as both sexes can be affected’.

Categories: Legal News , Equality
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll