The UK Supreme Court has ruled that "woman", "man" and "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 (the Act) means biological sex at birth, regardless of whether someone holds a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) or identifies and lives as another sex. The ruling applies across England, Scotland and Wales.

The lines by which we are categorising people for the purpose of the Act have not just been firmed up but have essentially changed when compared with the existing guidance and how organisations operated. This creates immediate compliance challenges for employers who must navigate competing legal obligations.

While For Women Scotland Ltd v. The Scottish Ministers stemmed from the question of whether trans women with GRCs should count towards female representation targets on public boards, its implications extend much further into everyday situations. This interpretation takes effect now – legally, it is a clarification of what has always been the case but was previously understood differently by many.

The court took care to emphasise that trans people also retain significant protections. They remain protected against discrimination and harassment because of gender reassignment.

The ruling affects equal pay claims, which require comparison with someone of the "opposite sex", meaning trans women must now compare themselves to women, not men.

Trans individuals can still claim sex discrimination if treated less favourably because they are perceived to be a particular sex.

A challenge for employers is striking the right balance between implementing a biological approach to single-sex facilities without unlawfully discriminating against trans individuals, particularly where space and facilities are limited.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) interim statement: key points

On 25 April 2025, the EHRC issued a short interim statement (not formal guidance) following the Supreme Court ruling. Key points for employers include:

• Confirmation that, under the Act, a "woman" is defined as a biological woman or girl (a person born female). A "man" is a biological man or boy (a person born male).
• Trans status, even with a GRC, does not change a person's sex for the purposes of the Act.
• In workplaces, trans women should not use women's facilities and trans men should not use men's facilities. Nor should they be left without facilities to use. While the statement noted that workplaces are required to provide separate single-sex facilities, there can be circumstances where that is not necessary (in which case, appropriate gender-neutral facilities should be provided). In practice, most workplaces are configured to provide a mix of male, female, accessible and, in some cases, separate gender-neutral/mixed-sex facilities.

• The statement notes that, in some circumstances, the law also allows trans women not to be permitted to use men's facilities and trans men not to be permitted to use women's facilities. This exemption should be approached with caution and advice taken before relying upon it.

• Where toilet, washing or changing facilities are in lockable rooms (not cubicles) which are intended for the use of one person at a time, they can be used by everyone. Where possible, mixed-sex facilities should be provided in addition to single-sex facilities.
• The EHRC plans to launch a public consultation in mid-May 2025 and aims to provide an updated Code of Practice to the UK government by the end of June.

This is an interim statement and not statutory guidance. There is no link to the relevant legal provisions and, in certain areas, it combines service provision and employment despite the underlying legal rules having some differences. The EHRC acknowledges that organisations need clarity but it is still working through the practical implications of the judgment. We expect that the consultation and guidance will address some of the new challenges which have arisen as a result of this ruling. The EHRC has been clear publicly that it expects organisations to comply with the ruling and that it has enforcement powers.

Updated statutory guidance would be very helpful. However, it is unlikely to provide complete certainty to those following it – there could still be legal challenges based either on its expression of the law or on the way an organisation has put the rules into practice in a particular case.

The broader legal landscape

While the Supreme Court's ruling provides clarity on the Act's interpretation, it exists within a complex legal framework:

• Health and safety legislation: Workplace regulations require adequate facilities for all employees, with specific requirements for male and female facilities in many cases. The reality in the UK is that the use of designated male and female spaces is common, so that is the framework from which we are starting.
• Facility design matters: Simply changing signage to "gender-neutral" is insufficient. Health and safety regulations often require specific configurations for gender-neutral facilities, such as a room that locks from the inside/sinks inside the room.
• Employee wellbeing: Obligations to staff extend to psychological wellbeing, with employers having a duty of care to all employees, some of whom may feel particularly vulnerable following this ruling.
• Individual rights: The Act protects people on the basis of various protected characteristics, including gender reassignment and sex, so we expect there will be claims regarding how the clash between these rights have been managed in law and practice. There may also be claims on human rights grounds, for example.
• Potential developments: This may not be the final word, as there could be further cases and legislative updates. As noted above, we expect further EHRC guidance.

Single-sex spaces

Finding respectful and appropriate solutions to comply with the judgment remains essential:

• Previous practice: The previous common practice was to treat people in accordance with their acquired gender regardless of GRC status. This accorded with the EHRC's guidance at the time.
• Legal position clarified: Single-sex provision must now be organised according to biological sex at birth. There are limits on when these single/same-sex provisions can be used, so at the outset there is a need to be proportionate and to consider other applicable laws such as those related to workplace health and safety. In each case, this could include reconsidering whether a single-sex route is still appropriate given our changed understanding of what that means in practice (i.e. grouping women and trans men, rather than women and trans women, as a starting point). There are many scenarios where single-sex spaces will still be appropriate, ranging from toilets/changing facilities to crisis support for women. Importantly though, it no longer seems permissible to draw the dividing line by anything other than biological sex – so the old approach of allowing individuals to change facility to accord with their trans identity does not seem coherent (as that would create a blurred divide and no legal basis for excluding all men from female facilities, for example).
• Trans exceptions may still be available in certain circumstances: Once it has been established that a single/same-sex provision is appropriate, the Act allows for exclusion of people from single-sex provisions on the grounds of gender re-assignment in certain scenarios, again where this is proportionate (and regardless of whether the person holds a GRC). Prior to this ruling, we would have understood this to mean an exclusion of a trans woman from a female space/service (this is the specific example given in the explanatory note to the relevant schedule of the Act), but now this exclusion would be of a trans male from a female space/service (and vice versa). In practice, this exemption was reserved for provision such as women's crisis support services. It was not used for toilets where trans people would have been expected to choose the most appropriate facility (this was a position to which many women objected and remains at the heart of the current debate around this case). It is not permissible to create a situation where trans people do not have an appropriate toilet facility to use. It is not clear that the Act permits exclusion from single sex toilets on the grounds of gender reassignment in a work context (as compared to service provision). This may be an area where we see further guidance and potential legal challenge.
• Risk of "outing": Requiring trans people to use facilities matching their birth sex (or even to move to a gender-neutral facility) could effectively "out" them, creating privacy concerns and potential distress. When it comes to trans history, some individuals are openly trans and others live by their acquired sex with their birth sex being known only to themselves and potentially a small number of people in the HR department, for example. Any change in practice to use a facility of the opposite sex or a neutral facility risks "outing" these individuals.

Options and proportionality on workplace single-sex facilities

Different organisations have different capabilities and constraints.

The starting point based on the ruling and EHRC interim statement is that people should use the facilities of their biological sex. If that individual does not feel comfortable doing so, then they can be offered gender-neutral facilities if available. If you are faced with an individual that does not have any place where they feel comfortable (or who feels that they are not comfortable with those they are sharing a space with), then that should be reviewed based on their own circumstances to see what workable and legal solutions can be found.

Smaller organisations may already have only single-occupancy, non-gendered facilities, in which case no changes may be needed because facilities are not split on the basis of sex. Others may currently only have male, female and potentially separate accessible spaces. They will need to consider how to provide appropriate facilities for all users while complying with the ruling. They may find that they are limited in terms of space and resources and will need to think carefully about what solutions are possible and required. Large organisations often have more options, potentially including a mix of male, female, accessible and gender-neutral facilities which will commonly also be more private.

Greater choice in facilities helps provide proportionate solutions. When gender-neutral or private spaces are used by many people, this minimises the risk of their use being conspicuous or inadvertently "outing" trans individuals.

While the ruling applies immediately, it may be that businesses take some time to make practical changes and are likely to be awaiting further guidance to be issued.

Seven practical next steps

Organisations now face the challenge of implementing policies that comply with the law while respecting everyone's dignity.

1. Look carefully at your current setup and the relevant health and safety provisions. It is key to understand what facilities you have, and what is required, before looking at possible changes. Where feasible, providing a mix of facilities would be helpful, including gender-neutral options alongside single-sex spaces. Care needs to be taken to ensure that accessible facilities are still available and sufficient for those who need them, keeping in mind that disabled employees may need more time or to use facilities without delay. It would be prudent to ensure that everyone knows what facilities there are, where they are and what they can access. Messaging should make it clear that everyone is welcome to use inclusive facilities and that doing so should not be taken as an indication of trans status.
2. Engage with affected people/groups to understand concerns and find workable solutions, and communicate the continued commitment to respect and support for everyone. This includes reminding people of existing protections against harassment and discrimination, and explaining to people what the ruling has said and any practical changes. Each organisation should take care to consider what the best approach is in terms of proactive messaging to larger groups and individual/reactive messages to address particular points that may arise.
3. Be mindful of privacy. This means not making inappropriate enquiries and ensuring anything you document which may include details of trans status is secure. There can be significant legal consequences for disclosing GRC status. All information about trans status must be handled sensitively and would amount to special category personal data.
4. Record the considerations that inform your approach. This can help to explain why an approach was taken and viewed as proportionate (for example, why a single-sex space is appropriate and what other facilities were available). This will help to make informed choices and could act as important justification for any action you take which may impact on a person's rights. Be mindful of individual privacy when recording anything.
5. Review your policies and identify those that may need to be updated. Even if you are not yet certain what the final position will be, you should begin reviewing the various policies held to identify those that may need to be updated. For example, a transitioning policy, equality policy, and health and safety policy may be first on the list.
6. Manage individual cases with empathy. If a trans individual is keen to work from home or is absent, then be mindful of the unique circumstances they are facing – this will need a tailored response and following usual processes may not be appropriate, particularly in the short term.
7. Take legal advice on your specific situation given the number of interrelated considerations and the significance of your response.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's ruling provides legal clarity on the definition of sex in the Act. Implementing this requires careful consideration of everyone's rights and needs.

The path forward involves ensuring legal compliance while acting with compassion, recognising that behind legal definitions are people whose experiences and needs matter equally. Listen, engage and approach these challenges with respect and consideration for all involved.