The Supreme Court’s gender ruling has implications for the workplace. Here’s what employees can expect
- Written by Jonathan Lord, Lecturer in Human Resource Management and Employment Law, University of Salford
In April 2025, the UK’s Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling[1] 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[2], legal[3], and social spheres[4]. But beyond the controversy, one crucial question remains: what does this mean for employers and employees?
For managers, the implications are significant. Legal obligations[5] 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[6] (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 – can be structured. Under Schedule 3 of the Equality Act[7], providers may offer single-sex services where it is a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”. The judgement affirms that such services must now be assessed strictly through the lens of biological sex.
For employers, this means they are required to navigate a more tightly defined legal landscape. The Equality Act 2010 recognises both sex and gender reassignment as protected characteristics. While single-sex spaces are lawful in limited, justifiable contexts, the legal bar for exclusion remains high.
In practical terms, employers must ensure that provision of single-sex facilities[8] – such as toilets, showers and changing rooms – complies with the Act.
Any such policies must be rooted in demonstrable need, such as privacy, dignity or safety concerns, and must not cause undue harm to trans employees. Providing gender-neutral or private alternatives is increasingly seen as good practice to minimise legal and reputational risk.
There is a real risk of legal claims[9] on either side. Cisgender women may bring claims where their rights to single-sex spaces are perceived to be undermined. Meanwhile, trans individuals may claim indirect discrimination if reasonable adjustments such as updating internal systems (email or ID badges, for example) or offering a uniform to reflect the employee’s identity are not made.
Employers must ensure that decisions on workplace design or service provision are evidence-based, proportionate and reviewed regularly.
Navigating this complex issue demands more than legal compliance. At its core, this is about people – and creating a respectful and inclusive workplace culture that values all employees.
Employers should review and reinforce workplace values through:
• clear dignity and respect policies that ensure staff are aware of lawful protections for both sex-based and gender identity rights
• voluntary and inclusive communication practices, such as the optional use of pronouns in email signatures or profiles
• training for managers and staff on both the legal framework and the lived realities of trans and gender-critical perspectives
• robust mechanisms for resolving disputes that treat all complaints sensitively and without bias.
Such steps will not only mitigate legal risk, they can also foster trust, morale and retention in a diverse workforce.
Employers must review whether their facilities and HR policies comply with the clarified legal interpretation.
In terms of facilities, where single-sex provisions exist, employers should ensure that they serve a clear and proportionate aim. This might be a female-only changing room in a fitness centre or healthcare setting where staff or service users are required to undress. Or it could be a women-only toilet or shower facility in a refuge for survivors of domestic abuse.
At the same time, gender-neutral or private alternatives should be considered to meet the needs of trans and non-binary employees.
And when it comes to HR and equality policies, employee handbooks, inclusion strategies and grievance procedures should be updated in line with the ruling. Employers should carry out impact assessments to determine whether any group is indirectly disadvantaged. They should then clearly document any steps for mitigation.
One of the most sensitive implications of the ruling is how employers manage conflicting beliefs. Some employees may have gender-critical views, while others consider gender identity as central to inclusion.
Following the decision in the Forstater v CGD Europe[11] case, these views – if expressed respectfully – are protected under the Equality Act’s provisions on religion or belief. Employers must walk a careful line: upholding lawful freedom of belief while enforcing respectful conduct.
Best practice includes things like promoting freedom of expression without tolerating harassment or abuse, avoiding compelled speech (for example, forced pronoun use) while encouraging inclusive language, and offering mediation where tensions arise between staff.
The key is balance. It should be possible to protect all employees’ rights while ensuring that no one feels unsafe or undermined. Some gender-critical employees may feel legally vindicated in expressing sex-based views. Others, particularly trans and non-binary staff, may feel their identities are being questioned or their inclusion diminished.
Workplace dignity policies must ensure that everyone is treated respectfully and fairly. As such, employers must carefully manage interpersonal dynamics and provide clear channels for raising concerns.
The Supreme Court ruling does not strip rights – it clarifies the legal terrain. For employers, the priority should be legal clarity, respectful inclusion and thoughtful leadership. This is not a time for reactive or ideological responses. Rather, it calls for policies that are lawful, proportionate and based on the principles of fairness and dignity.
By updating facilities, reviewing policies, training staff and managing conflict with integrity, employers can ensure that their workplaces uphold the law while building a culture of trust and mutual respect. The law has spoken, and now it’s time for employers to lead.
References
- ^ landmark ruling (supremecourt.uk)
- ^ political (theconversation.com)
- ^ legal (www.lawscot.org.uk)
- ^ social spheres (www.bbc.co.uk)
- ^ Legal obligations (www.equalityhumanrights.com)
- ^ gender recognition certificate (www.gov.uk)
- ^ Schedule 3 of the Equality Act (www.legislation.gov.uk)
- ^ single-sex facilities (www.equalityhumanrights.com)
- ^ legal claims (www.theguardian.com)
- ^ Vitalii Vodolazskyi/Shutterstock (www.shutterstock.com)
- ^ Forstater v CGD Europe (www.gov.uk)
