header-logo header-logo

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

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

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll