Sex, Gender and the Workplace: The UK Supreme Court Clarifies the Law

6 May 2025

Sex, Gender and the Workplace: The UK Supreme Court Clarifies the Law

Last month’s Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16 has major implications for how UK employers approach sex-based rights and workplace policies, particularly in relation to transgender employees.


At the heart of the case was a deceptively simple legal question: when the Equality Act 2010 refers to ‘sex’, does it mean biological sex, or can it include someone’s ‘acquired gender’ if they hold a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) under the Gender Recognition Act 2004?


The Supreme Court has now given a clear answer: under the Equality Act 2010, sex means biological sex. All transgender indivicuals (whether or not they have a GRC) must be treated in accordance with their birth sex, for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. 


The background


The case began as a challenge to Scottish government guidance under the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. That Act aimed to improve representation of women on public boards. But the guidance said that the definition of ‘woman’ included trans women with a GRC. This interpretation was challenged by feminist campaign group For Women Scotland, and the case ultimately reached the UK Supreme Court.


The decision


In a unanimous judgment, the Supreme Court held that the Equality Act 2010 uses the terms ‘man’, ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ to refer to biological sex only — not to acquired gender, even where a GRC has been granted. In doing so, the Court overturned the earlier ruling of the Scottish courts.


The Supreme Court was at pains to stress that it was not engaging in political debate. It was interpreting the law as it stands — particularly how the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA) interacts with the Equality Act 2010. The key provision was section 9(1) of the GRA, which states that a person’s gender becomes their acquired gender ‘for all purposes’ once a GRC is issued.


However, section 9(3) allows this to be overridden by other laws. The Supreme Court concluded that the Equality Act is one such law.


The Justices ruled that interpreting ‘sex’ to include acquired gender would make key parts of the Equality Act unworkable, including provisions on pregnancy discrimination, single-sex services and sports.   It would also create inconsistent rights among trans people based solely on whether they hold a GRC (a confidential document employers cannot lawfully ask about).


What this means for employers


This judgment has immediate relevance for workplace policies. Key points to note include the following:


  • a woman is a biological woman, and a man is a biological man, for the purposes of sex discrimination law;
  • transgender individuals remain protected under the separate protected characteristic of gender reassignment, regardless of whether they hold a GRC;
  • trans women cannot insist on access to women-only spaces (such as toilets or changing rooms) based on their acquired gender alone;
  • employers must carefully balance the rights of trans employees with those of other employees who may expect single-sex spaces to reflect biological sex.


This is a significant clarification in an area that has seen legal and cultural uncertainty. While some policy areas remain open to challenge — and further case law is likely — employers should now:


  • review equality, diversity and inclusion policies;
  • revisit your approach to single-sex spaces and occupational requirements;
  • take care when handling sensitive personal information, such as gender identity or gender reassignment status.


Above all, respect and sensitivity are key. Employers will need to walk a careful line, ensuring dignity and privacy for all employees while complying with what is now a clearer, if at times uncomfortable, legal framework.


If you would like help reviewing your workplace policies in light of this judgment, please get in touch with the Employment Team at Boardside Law.


Please share Boardside's expertise and insights with colleagues and associates. Thank you.

Working closely with you, we can navigate the hurdles you face, to build a stronger business and to achieve commercial advantage. Call us for an initial conversation on 0330 0949338

11 July 2025
As part of its ongoing corporate transparency reforms, Companies House is introducing two important compliance requirements that directors and company secretaries should be aware of, one immediate, and one longer-term. Director ID Verification – Coming This Autumn From Autumn 2025, all company directors will be legally required to verify their identity with Companies House. This is part of the implementation of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, aimed at reducing fraud and improving corporate accountability. The process will involve confirming your identity through the Companies House portal or via an authorised third party. For UK nationals with a passport and standard secondary ID, the process is expected to be quick and fully digital. Directors who fail to verify their identity will be committing an offence and may be unable to act in that capacity until verification is complete. Boardside Law will become an authorised provider to carry out this process on behalf of clients. If this would be of interest to you, please let us know. Paper Accounts to Be Phased Out by April 2027 From 1 April 2027, Companies House will no longer accept paper accounts. All companies, including micro-entities and dormant companies, will be required to file accounts using compatible accounting software. This applies to: Audited and unaudited accounts Limited companies, LLPs and charitable entities Group accounts and subsidiaries Although the change is nearly two years away, we recommend that companies with financial year ends of 31 December or 31 March treat the 2026 accounting period as the transition year. This allows time to get familiar with digital filing tools ahead of the April 2027 deadline. A full list of compatible software providers is available here: gov.uk/software-company-accounts/y/audited/group There are also separate links for LLPs and charities. What You Should Do Now Directors: Watch out for further announcements about ID verification and ensure you complete this when required. Company Secretaries / Finance Teams: Review your current filing method and speak to your accountant about moving to compliant software if you haven’t already. If you would like advice on preparing your company for these reforms, or support with managing director filings or company secretarial duties, the Boardside team is here to help.
10 July 2025
Whistleblowing: Reform on the Horizon 
10 July 2025
The Government is backing a proposed major amendment to the Employment Rights Bill that would render certain non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) unenforceable. Specifically, the amendment targets clauses that prevent individuals from speaking out about unlawful behaviour, such as harassment, discrimination, sexual misconduct or bullying. This shift follows sustained criticism of how NDAs have been used to cover up workplace misconduct and protect serial offenders, particularly in high-profile sectors like media, technology and education. While the aim is to protect victims, the change could have unintended consequences for employers. If confidentiality can no longer be assured, some employers may be less inclined to settle disputes at all, which could in itself drive more claims to an Employment Tribunal. The proposals in terms of voiding certain agreements would also extend to employment contracts and internal policies, not just settlement agreements. What Is Changing? The proposed reform (an amendment to the Employment Rights Bill), which was tabled in Parliament on 7 July 2025, would: void any contractual clause that seeks to prevent a person from disclosing misconduct; apply not only to settlement agreements but also, potentially, to employment contracts, policy documents, and confidentiality agreements; introduce civil penalties for employers or advisers who breach the new provisions. Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner has stated that the purpose is to prevent NDAs from being used as “gagging clauses” that silence victims. Why This Matters for Employers: Fewer settlements? Without confidentiality, some employers may feel less secure in offering financial settlements to resolve complaints. Loss of control over reputation management: Public disclosure could increase the reputational risks for employers, particularly in unresolved or disputed allegations. Employee voice strengthened: The change would empower employees to speak out, but some may prefer private resolution. Removing this option may reduce flexibility. Boardside's View: We support the main aim of increasing transparency and preventing misuse of legal tool agreements which genuinely help parties resolve employment-based issues. We certainly accept that employers should not be allowed to abuse their positions. However, we share concerns that an outright ban may discourage settlement and create uncertainty for all parties. Action Points: Review all current template agreements and HR policies. Train HR teams and line managers on the lawful use of confidentiality provisions. Keep a close eye on the final form of the legislation as it progresses through Parliament. Boardside Law can support you in adapting your internal documents and approach to reflect the likely changes, as well as keeping you updated on the final wording and timeline of implementation. Contact us
8 July 2025
AI and algorithmic decision-making is now deeply embedded in recruitment, performance tracking, and even disciplinary decisions. But the legal risks around automated decision-making is still evolving, and employers face serious compliance risks. What does the law say? Under UK GDPR, employees have the right not to be subject to solely automated decisions that have a significant effect on them. This includes decisions about recruitment (for example, CV screening by AI), disciplinary or capability outcomes, and performance rankings. Where such processing occurs, employers must: Provide meaningful information about the logic involved. Offer the right to obtain human intervention. Enable the individual to contest the decision. Key Risks Discrimination: biased data can lead to unlawful outcomes. Lack of transparency and explainability: AI systems are often ‘black boxes’, making it difficult to explain how decisions are made. Lack of documentation: employers may struggle to prove compliance without a proper audit trail. Failure to notify or offer human review. What employers should do Audit your use of AI tools in HR processes. Ensure there is always a human in the loop. Ensure transparency and accountability mechanisms are in place. Update internal data protection policies and privacy notices. Provide training to HR and senior leadership on AI compliance and ethical considerations. Boardside can support you in designing ethical and legally compliant approaches to AI in the workplace. Call us on 0330 0949338
3 July 2025
What You Need to Know Before 22 July
13 May 2025
Immigration Reforms: What Employers Need to Know 
12 May 2025
The Right to Disconnect: Coming Soon to a Workplace Near You…. Or Not? 
20 March 2025
6 April 2025 is a key date for those businesses that sell products and/or services to the general public.
20 March 2025
Neonatal Care Leave and Pay 
20 March 2025
Holiday Pay Liability: Assessing Your Risk
More posts