- 02 May 2025
- Employment
The recent UK Supreme Court decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16 has generated significant attention, but for most employers, we would argue that its practical impact is relatively limited—at least for now.
Rather than rewriting the law, the judgment primarily provides clarification. It confirms that under the Equality Act 2010, the terms “man”, “woman”, and “sex” refer to biological sex, as assigned at birth. That said, the ruling will likely lead to further legal challenges and case law, as those on either side of the debate seek to apply this judgment in different contexts.
Employers should not rush to overhaul policies. Instead, the focus should remain on treating all employees with respect, dignity, and fairness—something the law and the Equality Act 2010 continues to support. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is expected to provide an updated Code of Practice to the UK Government by the end of June 2025 for ministerial approval, and more clarity will likely emerge as ongoing and future cases play out in the courts.
What Was the Case About?
The Supreme Court reviewed Scottish Government guidance that sought to include trans women with Gender Recognition Certificates (GRCs) within the legal definition of “woman” for public board representation. The Court ruled that this interpretation was incompatible with the Equality Act 2010.
Crucially, the Court confirmed that “sex” in the 2010 Act refers to biological sex. That means:
- “Women” under the Act are biological females, regardless of whether a trans woman has a GRC.
- “Men” refers to biological males, not including trans men, whether or not they hold a GRC.
The judgment also clarified the relationship between the Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act 2004. Although the GRA says a person’s sex becomes their acquired gender “for all purposes” after obtaining a GRC, the GRA itself contains a provision which made it subject to the terms of any subsequent legislation. The Court confirmed therefore that the scope and applicability of GRCs are subject to exceptions—such as where applying the rule around acquired gender would be incompatible with later legislation or make that legislation incoherent, which they concluded that it did with the Equality Act.
Trans Rights and Legal Protections Remain
The Court were eager to stress that the ruling does not remove any protections for trans people. Gender reassignment remains one of the nine protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Individuals do not need a GRC to be protected from discrimination, harassment, or victimisation on that basis. Under the Equality Act 2010, the protected characteristic of gender reassignment applies where the person “is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex”.
Importantly, trans people can still bring discrimination claims based on:
- Gender reassignment, regardless of whether they have a GRC.
- Perceived sex, if they are treated less favourably because someone believes they are of a particular biological sex.
For example, a trans woman passed over for a promotion because she is perceived to be a biological woman may bring a claim for direct sex discrimination. Similarly, if she is harassed based on that perception, she has legal recourse under both the sex and gender reassignment provisions of the Act.
The equal pay legislation requires that someone bringing an equal pay claim must compare themselves to a person of the opposite sex.
About this article
-
SubjectSex, Gender and the Law: What the Supreme Court’s Recent Ruling Means for Employers
-
Author
-
Expertise
-
Published02 May 2025
Disclaimer
This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.
About this article
-
SubjectSex, Gender and the Law: What the Supreme Court’s Recent Ruling Means for Employers
-
Author
-
ExpertiseEmployment
-
Published02 May 2025