header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
08 May 2008 / David Malamatenios
Issue: 7320 / Categories: Features , Discrimination , Human rights , Employment
printer mail-detail

Sex changes

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Practitioners need to be alert to far-reaching changes made to the sex discrimination legislation, says David Malamatenios

Important changes to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA 1975) came into force on 6 April 2008. These changes are far-reaching and could have serious repercussions for employers and their advisers who fail to take proper note of them. What is the most surprising thing to arise from them is the apparent indifference and lack of preparation in the business community to meet the challenges presented by this new legislation.

Outside of the specialist, legal and personnel press the changes themselves have received little publicity either before or after their implementation. This means that many businesses have had little time to prepare or are not even aware of the need to make preparations. This is concerning considering that the government has estimated that it will cost small firms in the region of £10m to comply.

For the changes to have come about should come as no surprise to anyone. They have been on the cards for some time. In 2007, the High Court found

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
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
Read All
NLJ this week: No such thing as a ‘Welsh seat’
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
NLJ this week: Jury reform risks justice for efficiency’s sake
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’
NLJ this week: Crypto fightback offers ‘new frontier for law’
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
NLJ this week: Time to revive the duty to report crime?
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
NLJ this week: When are experts truly ‘necessary’?
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
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll