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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll