People

Careers

Corporate

Commercial

Employment

News & Insights

Blog

News

Videos

Who we are

Environment & Sustainability

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

WONDER Foundation

Home

Resources

<p>Registered in England &amp; Wales at 73 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London, WC2H 9JQ</p>
<p><a href="tel:+442081596000">Tel: +44 (0)20 8159 6000</a></p>
<p>Company Nr: 15894546</p>
<p>ICO Registration Nr:  ZB842887</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">VAT Registration Nr: 484 5226 73</p>
<p>Linnear Legal is an unregulated legal services provider, meaning the firm itself is not regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). However, the solicitors employed by the firm are individually regulated by the SRA. Please see our Terms and Conditions for further information on our regulatory status, complaints procedure and insurance arrangements.</p>


Terms & Conditions

Cookie Policy

Privacy Policy

Services

Insights

About

We are driven by doing things differently, from every angle. 

Taking our Carbon Neutral Certified  status seriously.  

Putting equity and inclusion at the heart of everything we do.

Supporting sustainable employment and gender equality with WONDER. 

WONDER foundation

Contact us

<p>On 15 April 2025, the UK Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous judgment that the terms ‘man’, ‘woman’, and ‘sex’ in the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Equality Act 2010</a> (EA 2010) refer to biological sex, rather than acquired gender following the issue of a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). This judgment, which has sparked some controversy, has significant implications for employers and service providers, which we discuss below.</p>
<h3>The case before the Supreme Court</h3>
<p>The case – <a href="https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0042" target="_blank" rel="noopener">For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16</a> – arose following the campaign group For Women Scotland questioning statutory guidance issued by the Scottish government. The issue at the heart of the case was whether ‘sex’ under the EA 2010 referred to ‘certified sex’ or ‘biological sex’. If the EA 2010’s definition referred to ‘certified sex’, that would mean that a person issued with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) that recognises that person as female would be considered to be a woman for all purposes.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court emphasised in their judgment that their role was to construe the meaning of gender and sex within the specific legislative framework of the EA 2010, and not to adjudicate wider societal debates. In their judgment, they concluded that ‘sex’ refers to biological sex and that ‘woman’ denotes a biological woman.</p>
<h3>The Court’s reasoning</h3>
<p>The Court provided its main reasons behind its landmark decision as the following:</p>
<ul>
<li>Legislative history: the Court ruled that there ‘can be no doubt’ that Parliament’s original intent in the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/65/enacted" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sex Discrimination Act 1975</a>, on which the EA 2010 is derived, was to envisage sex as a binary, biological characteristic</li>
<li>Separate protection for trans people: a separate protection for trans people is included in the EA 2010 which protects trans individuals based on the protected characteristic of gender reassignment</li>
<li>Risk of statutory confusion: the Court argued that an interpretation of the EA 2010 provisions relating to sex discrimination that didn’t solely consider biological sex would render provisions related to pregnancy and maternity unworkable, and run the risk of making the law incoherent</li>
<li>Practical challenges: organisations would have no way of knowing who has a GRC, as that information is confidential</li>
<li>A two-tier system for trans people: providing trans people with a GRC with greater rights would mean those without a GRC would have fewer rights, despite sharing the same protected characteristic</li>
<li>Uniformity of meaning: a consistent definition of sex throughout the EA 2010 is legally necessary</li>
</ul>
<h3>Implications for trans people</h3>
<p>When delivering the judgment, Lord Hodge was keen to stress that it should not be interpreted as a victory for one social group at the expense of another, and that trans individuals remain robustly protected in the workplace under the EA 2010. The protected characteristic of gender reassignment prohibits discrimination, harassment and victimisation regardless of whether the individual has undergone medical transition or obtained a GRC.</p>
<p>Further, the Court clarified that trans employees may bring claims based on discrimination by association or perception related to their acquired gender. For instance, a trans woman perceived as a woman can bring a sex discrimination claim without needing to disclose their biological sex or rely on a GRC.</p>
<p>The Court stressed that the decision aims solely to preserve the coherent application of statutory protections.</p>
<h3>Practical challenges ahead</h3>
<p>Nevertheless, the decision gives rise to complex legal and practical questions. A notable example is the treatment of parental leave where a biological woman has transitioned to male and obtained a GRC. Since maternity and paternity rights are defined differently in law, navigating such cases may require further legislative clarification or judicial development.</p>
<p>In most areas, including protections against sexual harassment, the ruling is unlikely to create significant disruption. Both sexes remain equally protected from workplace harassment and discrimination.</p>
<h3>EHRC response and interim guidance</h3>
<p>The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has moved swiftly to issue an <a href="https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">interim update to assist organisations</a>, with a full revised Code of Practice and updated guidance due by the end of June following a short consultation period in May.</p>
<p>The interim guidance advises the following:</p>
<ul>
<li>Employers must ensure the provision of single-sex toilets and changing rooms</li>
<li>Trans women (biological men) and trans men (biological women) should not use facilities designated for the opposite biological sex – if they do, the facilities can no longer lawfully be described as single-sex</li>
<li>Organisations should provide mixed-sex facilities alongside single-sex ones where possible</li>
<li>Care must be taken to avoid excluding trans individuals from necessary facilities altogether</li>
</ul>
<h3>Employer considerations</h3>
<p>The EHRC’s interim guidance provides a critical baseline, but employers must prepare for further refinements once the final guidance is issued. In the meantime, organisations should:</p>
<ul>
<li>Review policies: update internal policies and employee handbooks to align with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of biological sex under the EA 2010. Consider the need for further training on equality and diversity obligations</li>
<li>Risk assess workplace facilities: conduct a thorough review of existing single-sex and mixed-sex facilities, and ensure arrangements comply with the clarified legal standards</li>
<li>Monitor data and equality practices: evaluate how equality monitoring and data collection activities interact with the biological definition of sex</li>
<li>Support employee wellbeing: recognise that this ruling may cause concern among trans employees. Proactively offer support, foster inclusivity and reaffirm commitments to protecting all protected characteristics</li>
<li>Remain agile: given the interim nature of the EHRC’s guidance, employers should remain flexible and ready to adapt their approaches following the final publication of updated Codes of Practice</li>
</ul>
<p>For employers, the Supreme Court’s judgment demands careful thought, sensitive management and a review of existing policies to ensure inclusive and legally compliant workplaces. As society continues to grapple with profound questions around sex and gender, the law, at least for now, has drawn clear parameters within which those debates must operate.</p>


Supreme Court rules on the definition of ‘woman’: insights for employers

The UK Supreme Court has ruled that ‘sex’ in the Equality Act means biological sex. Employers must review policies to comply with the clarified law.

Supreme Court rules on the definition of ‘woman’: insights for employers | Linnear Legal

https://linnearcms.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/shutterstock_486314485.jpg

Linnear Legal

https://linnearcms.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Linnear-Legal-logo.png

https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/557c7f891380b6950d58942a774782ca?s=96&d=mm&r=g