header-logo header-logo

Gender critical cases: making bad law?

169190
The law is tying itself in knots over gender critical cases. A new approach is needed urgently to make the UK safer for trans people, says Oscar Davies
  • In recent gender critical cases, judges have taken the wrong approach, permitting the erosion of trans and non-binary people’s rights.
  • Judges must focus on what the belief is, and whether it contains elements of transphobia.
  • If a belief is protected, the manifestations must comply with the Equality Act 2010, or the employer is likely to be justified in sanctioning the employee. Sex has its place, but gender identity—and trans identity—must be respected.

‘Gender critical’ cases are a hot seat of litigation in the UK. But are judges getting it right in their approach?

A ‘belief’ can be protected in certain circumstances under s 10 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010). Section 10 states: ‘Belief means any religious or philosophical belief and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief.’

For a philosophical

To access this full article please fill the form below.
All fields are mandatory unless marked as 'Optional'.
If you already a subscriber to New Law Journal, please login here

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise expands London secondaries team with addition of Mary Lavelle

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law welcomes ex-Irwin Mitchell team to launch Hestia Private Client

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Heavyweight patent litigator will bolster Carpmaels Ransford’s rapidly growing Litigation team as firm marks its 250th anniversary

NEWS
Lawyers have welcomed plans to create specialist rape and serious sex offences courtrooms at every Crown Court
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
back-to-top-scroll