Lawyer at Liverpool law firm Hill Dickinson warns Supreme Court’s upholding of biological interpretation of ‘sex’ will have ‘very significant and obvious implications’ for employers. Tony McDonough reports

Liverpool city region employers face “very significant and obvious implications” in the workplace following a ruling by the Supreme Court last week.

In a judgement in the last few days Supreme Court judges have upheld the biological interpretation of ‘sex’ in Equality Act 2010. They ruled that the terms ‘man’, ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the Act refer to biological sex.

This means a gender recognition certificate, held by a number of trans women and men, does not change a person’s sex for the purposes of equality law.

Emma Ahmed, legal director and professional support lawyer at Liverpool law firm Hill Dickinson has warned employers they may need to seek expert advice on their current policies.

Writing in a blog on the firm’s website, she said: “The Supreme Court decision will have very significant and obvious implications for the interpretation of the Equality Act 2010.

“It will have a practical impact on numerous day-to-day issues in the workplace and across wider society, such as the provision of single sex facilities and services, data collection, and single sex sports. 

“We recommend taking specific advice, tailored to your individual circumstances, if you are concerned about these issues.”

Scottish campaign group, For Women Scotland had appealed to the Supreme Court to challenge the legality of guidance issued by the Scottish government regarding legislation designed to redress gender imbalances on Scottish public sector boards.

Following several years of legal ambiguity, the court made clear that the term ‘woman’ refers to a biological woman and does not include biological men who identify as women.

Baroness Falkner, chairwoman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said the judges decision was a “victory for common sense”. She added: “If a male is allowed to use a women-only service, it isn’t any longer a single-sex space.”

In their ruling the judges added that its interpretation of the Equality Act 2010 “does not cause disadvantage to trans people”, with or without a gender recognition certificate because they can still invoke the Act’s protections in other ways.

READ MORE: Liverpool barrister bows out after ‘extraordinary career’

LCR Pride Foundation, which organises the annual March with Pride event in the city, issued a statement following the ruling. 

Lead trustee Amanda Hilton said: “Whilst the decision of the Supreme Court is a disappointment and will understandably cause distress to many people, the court made it clear that the Equality Act provides protection from discrimination against the transgender community and nothing within the judgement changes that.

“Equality and inclusivity applies to all and human rights are not to be divided up from a fixed portion but should be available to all.”