Navigating the UK Supreme Court’s Ruling on “Sex” and “Woman” in the Equality Act
In a landmark judgment with significant implications for employers, HR professionals and service providers across the UK, the Supreme Court ruled on 16 April 2025 that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refer exclusively to biological sex.
This decision, handed down in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, provided some legal clarity but also raised important questions about how organisations approach inclusivity and gender identity in policy and practice.
The case stemmed from statutory guidance issued under the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, which aimed to improve gender balance in public sector leadership. The Scottish Government had interpreted the term “woman” to include transgender women holding a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). This interpretation was legally contested, eventually reaching the UK Supreme Court.
In its ruling, the Court found that the Scottish Government’s approach was incompatible with the legal framework set by the Equality Act. The Justices affirmed that “sex” and “woman” in the Act refer to biological sex, not gender identity, even where a GRC has been issued.
The Court also made clear that any changes to the legal meaning of these terms must come through primary legislation enacted by the UK Parliament, not through interpretation by a devolved government.
While the Supreme Court decision clarifies legal interpretation, it also introduces complex challenges for organisations and businesses committed to fostering inclusive and respectful environments.
The judgment is also likely to be subject of appeal to the European court of human rights.
Understanding the ruling
The Supreme Court emphasised that the UK Equality Act draws a legal distinction between biological sex and gender reassignment, in the legal definitions it uses.
This means that where the word “woman” is expressly used, for example in relation to single-sex services or employment roles, such services or roles can be lawfully restricted to women based on biological sex. However, the ruling does not remove existing protections under discrimination provisions. Gender reassignment, sex and sexual orientation remain a protected characteristic under discrimination law in the UK.
What does this mean for organisations?
Here's how organisations can respond with sensitivity, legal awareness and integrity:
Review policies and practices
Now is the time to audit internal policies around recruitment, single-sex facilities, and gender-specific roles. Ensure your documentation is clear on the basis of inclusion and aligns with the legal framework, while still upholding best practices in diversity and inclusion.
Continue to uphold protections
Despite the ruling, it remains unlawful to discriminate against someone based on gender reassignment, sex or sexual orientation. This includes hiring practices, workplace treatment, access to facilities or access to services and goods where appropriate. The Supreme Court judgment was clear that trans people (with or without a GRC) will still be protected from discrimination.
Individuals must feel safe, supported, and valued within your organisation.
Provide training
Sensitivity training for managers and staff should be updated to reflect the current legal context, reinforcing the importance of treating all employees with dignity and respect. This includes addressing unconscious bias and understanding the lived experiences of transgender individuals.
Avoid blanket exclusions
While the ruling allows exclusions in certain scenarios (e.g. single-sex services), they must be proportionate, justified and assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Automatically excluding individuals from spaces or roles is not only unethical but likely to be unlawful.
Don't politicise policy
The debate surrounding this ruling is emotionally charged and politically sensitive. Organisations should remain focused on people-first policies, not polarisation. Ensure safety, equity and well-being for all staff.
A call for compassion
For many transgender individuals, this ruling has caused anxiety about their rights and societal acceptance.
Directors and HR teams are uniquely positioned to provide reassurance and promote stability and as such clear communication, compassionate leadership and a consistent emphasis on inclusion will go a long way.
Organisations that continue to demonstrate empathy will be a benchmark for ethical leadership, regardless of the legal technicalities of the Supreme Court ruling.
Before implementing any policy changes that may affect employees or service users, it would be wise to seek legal advice given the complexities of the judgment.