No Result
View All Result
Benefits Expert
  • About
  • Advertise
  • Alerts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • NEWS
  • IN DEPTH
  • PROFILE
  • PENSIONS
  • GLOBAL REWARDS
  • FINANCIAL BENEFITS
  • HEALTH & WELLBEING
  • DIVERSITY & INCLUSION
  • PODCAST
No Result
View All Result
Benefits Expert
  • NEWS
  • IN DEPTH
  • PROFILE
  • PENSIONS
  • GLOBAL REWARDS
  • FINANCIAL BENEFITS
  • HEALTH & WELLBEING
  • DIVERSITY & INCLUSION
  • PODCAST

UK Supreme Court clarifies ‘incoherent’ Equality Act definition of ‘woman’

by Claire Churchard
17/04/2025
gender, psychology, equality act, sex, discrimination
Share on LinkedInShare on Twitter

The UK Supreme Court has ruled that, for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, the legal definition of “woman” is based on biological sex rather than acquired gender status.

Five judges agreed that transgender women, even those with a gender recognition certificate (GRC), should not be counted as women when legislation requires the representation of both sexes, such as gender quotas on public boards in Scotland (2018 Act). The court ruled that the concept of sex is binary.

The judgment follows a case brought by campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS), which challenged the Scottish government’s policy of including trans women in the 50 percent female quota for public board representation. FWS lost their case but appealed to the Supreme Court.

Judges in the Supreme Court rejected Scottish ministers’ interpretations that trans women do count towards quotas, saying this would create unequal sub-groups among transgender individuals based on whether they hold a GRC. The court said such interpretations would be unworkable and infringe on the rights of others, including those with same-sex attraction.

It concluded that a biological definition of sex is essential for the proper functioning of key provisions in the Equality Act—such as those relating to single-sex spaces, services, sports, communal accommodation, and charities.

Interpreting sex based on GRC status would lead to legal incoherence and practical difficulties, the court said.

A government spokesperson said the ruling brings clarity and confidence for women, and services such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs.

However, the court’s decision does not change protections against discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment, which is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. It does clarify how sex should be interpreted in legal and policy contexts where biological definitions are required.

Jonathan Mansfield, employment law partner at Spencer West, said: “This latest ruling highlights inconsistencies in sex based rights in employment and poses some practical issues for employers. Certain rights which are currently available related to sex such as equal pay will only be available based on biological sex. 

RELATED POSTS

Benefits Expert Summit 2025, October, Easthampstead Park, Wokingham

Benefits Expert Summit 2025 to dig into HR’s AI use, performance culture, and the impact of employment law and pension reforms

Workplace, stress, overwhelm, wellbeing, HR, mental health

Pressure on HR rises as 94% report work-related stress

“A trans woman, for example, will not have the right to bring an equal pay claim on the basis that she is paid less than a (biological) man. There is specific protection against discrimination for those who have undergone or propose to undergo gender re-assignment. However, this protection does not extend to all those who would be entitled to apply for a GRC where the requirements include a diagnosis or gender dysphoria and having lived in the acquired gender for at least two years among other requirements.”

He said that the Supreme Court decision is consistent with the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) recommendations but added that more legislative clarification would be needed. 

In 2023, EHRC recommended that a biological definition of “sex” in the Equality Act should be adopted as it creates clarity in more areas of legal protection (e.g. data collection) than confusion or disadvantage (e.g. equal pay). However, legislative clarification is necessary as the EHRC noted that society has evolved considerably with regard to matters of protected characteristics of sex and gender re-assignment since the Act came in.

EHRC welcomed the judgment, saying it addressed challenges around maintaining single-sex spaces and the legal clarity needed for rights based on biological sex.

Baroness Kishwer Falkner, EHRC chairwoman, said it has “significant implications for the interpretation of Britain’s equality laws”. 

“We will take the outcome of this appeal into account in our ongoing work as the regulator of the Equality Act,” she said. “That includes the development of our revised code of practice which, subject to ministerial approval, is expected to be laid before parliament before the summer recess. We will be working at pace to incorporate the implications of this judgment into the updated code, which supports service providers, public bodies and associations to understand their duties under the Equality Act and put them into practice.”

The EHRC chair added that where this judgment impacts the regulator’s other advice for duty-bearers, such as  single-sex services guidance, “we will review it as a matter of urgency and alert users to where guidance has been withdrawn or needs to be updated”.

However, a number of LGBTQ+ and trans advocacy groups expressed concern over the ruling’s impact on transgender rights and inclusion.

Peter Cheese, chief executive of the CIPD, welcomed the Supreme Court’s clarification today.

“This will provide further understanding for individuals and organisations in what has been a difficult area for employers to interpret and find the right balance, recognising the rights and beliefs that need to be upheld for all,” he said.

“Employers will need to ensure that their policies and approaches are up to date with today’s legal clarification of the position in the UK. However, there will remain legal and practical issues for employers to work through to support inclusion, dignity, and fairness at work and ensure all colleagues are protected from discrimination and harassment.

“We hope that today’s ruling will simplify some of the guidance and discussion in this space and as the CIPD, we are updating our own content and resources for HR professionals where needed.”

Next Post
Gender health gap at work

Employers may need to 'de-trans' policies after landmark Supreme Court sex ruling

Financial stress, wellbeing, productivity, money. worries, concerns, health, workplace, mental wellebing

Employers urged to audit employee stress as it hits productivity and motivation

SUMMIT

BENEFITS UNBOXED PODCAST

Benefits Unboxed
Benefits Unboxed

The podcast from Benefits Expert, the title for HR, reward and benefits professionals.

Seasoned professionals examine the challenges and innovations in today’s employee benefits, reward and HR sector. Every episode, they will unbox a key issue and unpack what it really means for employers and how they can tackle it.

The regulars are Claire Churchard, editor of Benefits Expert; Carole Goldsmith, HR director at the Royal Horticultural Society, and Steve Herbert, consultant and rewards & benefits veteran.

The US DEI Rollback: What It Means for UK Employers
byBenefits Expert from Definite Article Media

The US retreat from diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) is making waves far beyond the country's borders. In the wake of President Trump’s executive order abolishing DEI across federal government departments, global firms like Goldman Sachs and Accenture have rapidly dialled down their own efforts. 

The influence is being felt in the UK too. However, the UK operates under a different legal framework. It has stronger workplace protections and a government actively looking to enhance employee rights through its Make Work Pay agenda. But as US firms reposition their approach to DEI, UK subsidiaries could find themselves caught between conflicting priorities.

In the latest Benefits Unboxed podcast, co-hosts Claire Churchard, editor of Benefits Expert, Carole Goldsmith, HR director at the Royal Horticultural Society, and Steve Herbert, industry veteran and reward and benefits consultant, discuss how the US DEI rollback might impact UK businesses.

The US DEI Rollback: What It Means for UK Employers
The US DEI Rollback: What It Means for UK Employers
05/03/2025
Benefits Expert from Definite Article Media
Search Results placeholder

GUIDE TO CASH PLANS



CLICK TO REQUEST A FREE COPY

OPINION

(Left) Simon Fowler, Adviserplus, Empowering People Group, (right) Rena Christou, Halborns

Top 10 employment law reforms every HR team needs to prepare for now

Steve Herbert, consultant, ambassador, reward, benefits, HR strategy

Trump blinks: another rollercoaster day for the world economy 

Karl Bennett, Perkbox Vivup, EAPA, chair-wellbeing, EAP

Perception gap? Employers need to consider their people not the latest trends

Steve Herbert, consultant, ambassador, reward, benefits, HR strategy

Trump’s tariffs: great but terrible

SUBSCRIBE

Benefits Expert

© 2024 Definite Article Limited. Design by 71 Media Limited.

  • About
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Contact

Follow Benefits Expert

No Result
View All Result
  • News
  • In depth
  • Profile
  • Pensions
  • Global rewards
  • Financial benefits
  • Health & wellbeing
  • Diversity & Inclusion