In April 2025, the UK’s Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers, offering long-awaited clarification on how “sex” should be interpreted under the Equality Act 2010. The court ruled that, for the purposes of this legislation, “woman” refers to biological sex, not gender identity.
The decision sparked intense debate across political, legal, and social spheres. But beyond the controversy, one crucial question remains: what does this mean for employers and employees?
For managers, the implications are significant. Legal obligations must now be understood within a clarified framework that distinguishes between biological sex and gender reassignment.
Employers face legal risks such as unlimited compensation at an employment tribunal. There’s also the potential fallout in terms of their reputation, as well as internal tensions as staff navigate issues of identity, belief and inclusion.
The Supreme Court case centred on whether Scottish legislation could expand the definition of “woman” to include transgender women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC). The court ruled it could not, reaffirming that the Equality Act defines “woman” and “man” by reference to biological sex. While the Act separately protects people with the characteristic of gender reassignment, the two are not interchangeable in law.
This ruling has wide-reaching implications for how single-sex services – such as women-only refuges, sports or changing facilities –...
A video on Facebook posted on 26 November and since viewed over 30,000 times falsely claims that the UK Supreme Court has just ordered a new general election. This is completely untrue. The Supreme...