Description
In this highly publicised case, the Supreme Court was asked to determine what the definition of “a woman” was under the Equality Act 2010. Listen along to find out what happened!
Hosted by Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.
Transcription
Today in the Lefebvre HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing the Supreme Court judgment in the case of For Women Scotland Limited and the Scottish Ministers, in which the court was asked to determine the definition of a woman for the purposes of the Equality Act. Within the Equality Act 2010, the definition of the protected characteristic of sex is based on a person's gender, that is, the fact that a person is male or female. The Supreme Court has recently heard an appeal against a decision by the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland concerning the scope of the sex discrimination provisions in the Equality Act, in which the Court of Session had held that the definition of a woman in the Equality Act included a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate. Given the legal significance of the disputed statutory interpretation, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and various charities and representative bodies were given permission to intervene. The Supreme Court upheld the appeal, overturned the Court of Session's decision, and unanimously held that the definitions of sex woman and man in the Equality Act refer to biological sex and that obtaining a gender recognition certificate does not change a person's sex for equality law purposes. The court held that the legacy equality legislation on which the Equality Act 2010 was based were based on a biological meaning of sex. This did not change when the Gender Recognition Act 2004 came into force. As the Equality Act was an amending and consolidating statute when it was enacted. It carried across the biological meaning of the terms man and woman and sex from the legacy legislation. Although the Gender Recognition Act provides that trans people with a gender recognition certificate are to be considered their acquired gender for all purposes, this rule is expressly disapplied where the words of legislation, whether enacted before or after the commencement of the Gender Recognition Act, are, on a careful consideration, interpreted in their context and having regard to their underlying purpose inconsistent with that rule. This exception applies to the Equality Act because its provisions relating to sex discrimination, including those relating to pregnancy and maternity, can only be interpreted as referring to a person's biological sex. Interpreting sex to mean the sex certified by a gender recognition certificate, as the Court of Session had, would cut across the definitions of man and woman. In turn, this would lead to numerous legal and practical problems in the application of the Equality Act and its exemptions. Therefore, the correct interpretation of the Equality Act relies on a biological meaning of the phrases sex, man and woman. This biological understanding of equality law does not cause disadvantage to people who are trans, irrespective of whether they have a gender recognition certificate. because they can still benefit from the Equality Act's protection in various other ways including via the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Trans people are also protected against perceived or associated direct discrimination, harassment or victimisation related to the sex they identify with. Likewise, they can claim indirect sex discrimination if they suffer the same disadvantage as those with the sex they identify with, even though they do not share that sex. The Supreme Court decision clarifies our understanding of the Equality Act 2010 and its exceptions. The Court was keen to stress that the decision does not mean trans people can be mistreated in the workplace or society. Nevertheless, the Court's decision has significant implications for numerous day-to-day issues in the workplace and across wider society. One such area is the provision and use of single-sex toilets and changing rooms. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has issued interim guidance on this. and fuller guidance is expected over the summer. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.
Description
In this highly publicised case, the Supreme Court was asked to determine what the definition of “a woman” was under the Equality Act 2010. Listen along to find out what happened!
Hosted by Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.
Transcription
Today in the Lefebvre HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing the Supreme Court judgment in the case of For Women Scotland Limited and the Scottish Ministers, in which the court was asked to determine the definition of a woman for the purposes of the Equality Act. Within the Equality Act 2010, the definition of the protected characteristic of sex is based on a person's gender, that is, the fact that a person is male or female. The Supreme Court has recently heard an appeal against a decision by the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland concerning the scope of the sex discrimination provisions in the Equality Act, in which the Court of Session had held that the definition of a woman in the Equality Act included a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate. Given the legal significance of the disputed statutory interpretation, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and various charities and representative bodies were given permission to intervene. The Supreme Court upheld the appeal, overturned the Court of Session's decision, and unanimously held that the definitions of sex woman and man in the Equality Act refer to biological sex and that obtaining a gender recognition certificate does not change a person's sex for equality law purposes. The court held that the legacy equality legislation on which the Equality Act 2010 was based were based on a biological meaning of sex. This did not change when the Gender Recognition Act 2004 came into force. As the Equality Act was an amending and consolidating statute when it was enacted. It carried across the biological meaning of the terms man and woman and sex from the legacy legislation. Although the Gender Recognition Act provides that trans people with a gender recognition certificate are to be considered their acquired gender for all purposes, this rule is expressly disapplied where the words of legislation, whether enacted before or after the commencement of the Gender Recognition Act, are, on a careful consideration, interpreted in their context and having regard to their underlying purpose inconsistent with that rule. This exception applies to the Equality Act because its provisions relating to sex discrimination, including those relating to pregnancy and maternity, can only be interpreted as referring to a person's biological sex. Interpreting sex to mean the sex certified by a gender recognition certificate, as the Court of Session had, would cut across the definitions of man and woman. In turn, this would lead to numerous legal and practical problems in the application of the Equality Act and its exemptions. Therefore, the correct interpretation of the Equality Act relies on a biological meaning of the phrases sex, man and woman. This biological understanding of equality law does not cause disadvantage to people who are trans, irrespective of whether they have a gender recognition certificate. because they can still benefit from the Equality Act's protection in various other ways including via the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Trans people are also protected against perceived or associated direct discrimination, harassment or victimisation related to the sex they identify with. Likewise, they can claim indirect sex discrimination if they suffer the same disadvantage as those with the sex they identify with, even though they do not share that sex. The Supreme Court decision clarifies our understanding of the Equality Act 2010 and its exceptions. The Court was keen to stress that the decision does not mean trans people can be mistreated in the workplace or society. Nevertheless, the Court's decision has significant implications for numerous day-to-day issues in the workplace and across wider society. One such area is the provision and use of single-sex toilets and changing rooms. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has issued interim guidance on this. and fuller guidance is expected over the summer. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.
Share
Embed
You may also like
Should expert evidence on an employer’s defence have been allowed in an equal pay claim?
Was an employer liable for a discriminatory comment made by an employee to their union rep?
Was disciplining for criticising gender-critical views constructive unfair dismissal?
Can an extended period of sick leave prior to leaving make a non-compete clause unenforceable?
Description
In this highly publicised case, the Supreme Court was asked to determine what the definition of “a woman” was under the Equality Act 2010. Listen along to find out what happened!
Hosted by Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.
Transcription
Today in the Lefebvre HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing the Supreme Court judgment in the case of For Women Scotland Limited and the Scottish Ministers, in which the court was asked to determine the definition of a woman for the purposes of the Equality Act. Within the Equality Act 2010, the definition of the protected characteristic of sex is based on a person's gender, that is, the fact that a person is male or female. The Supreme Court has recently heard an appeal against a decision by the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland concerning the scope of the sex discrimination provisions in the Equality Act, in which the Court of Session had held that the definition of a woman in the Equality Act included a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate. Given the legal significance of the disputed statutory interpretation, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and various charities and representative bodies were given permission to intervene. The Supreme Court upheld the appeal, overturned the Court of Session's decision, and unanimously held that the definitions of sex woman and man in the Equality Act refer to biological sex and that obtaining a gender recognition certificate does not change a person's sex for equality law purposes. The court held that the legacy equality legislation on which the Equality Act 2010 was based were based on a biological meaning of sex. This did not change when the Gender Recognition Act 2004 came into force. As the Equality Act was an amending and consolidating statute when it was enacted. It carried across the biological meaning of the terms man and woman and sex from the legacy legislation. Although the Gender Recognition Act provides that trans people with a gender recognition certificate are to be considered their acquired gender for all purposes, this rule is expressly disapplied where the words of legislation, whether enacted before or after the commencement of the Gender Recognition Act, are, on a careful consideration, interpreted in their context and having regard to their underlying purpose inconsistent with that rule. This exception applies to the Equality Act because its provisions relating to sex discrimination, including those relating to pregnancy and maternity, can only be interpreted as referring to a person's biological sex. Interpreting sex to mean the sex certified by a gender recognition certificate, as the Court of Session had, would cut across the definitions of man and woman. In turn, this would lead to numerous legal and practical problems in the application of the Equality Act and its exemptions. Therefore, the correct interpretation of the Equality Act relies on a biological meaning of the phrases sex, man and woman. This biological understanding of equality law does not cause disadvantage to people who are trans, irrespective of whether they have a gender recognition certificate. because they can still benefit from the Equality Act's protection in various other ways including via the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Trans people are also protected against perceived or associated direct discrimination, harassment or victimisation related to the sex they identify with. Likewise, they can claim indirect sex discrimination if they suffer the same disadvantage as those with the sex they identify with, even though they do not share that sex. The Supreme Court decision clarifies our understanding of the Equality Act 2010 and its exceptions. The Court was keen to stress that the decision does not mean trans people can be mistreated in the workplace or society. Nevertheless, the Court's decision has significant implications for numerous day-to-day issues in the workplace and across wider society. One such area is the provision and use of single-sex toilets and changing rooms. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has issued interim guidance on this. and fuller guidance is expected over the summer. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.
Description
In this highly publicised case, the Supreme Court was asked to determine what the definition of “a woman” was under the Equality Act 2010. Listen along to find out what happened!
Hosted by Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.
Transcription
Today in the Lefebvre HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing the Supreme Court judgment in the case of For Women Scotland Limited and the Scottish Ministers, in which the court was asked to determine the definition of a woman for the purposes of the Equality Act. Within the Equality Act 2010, the definition of the protected characteristic of sex is based on a person's gender, that is, the fact that a person is male or female. The Supreme Court has recently heard an appeal against a decision by the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland concerning the scope of the sex discrimination provisions in the Equality Act, in which the Court of Session had held that the definition of a woman in the Equality Act included a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate. Given the legal significance of the disputed statutory interpretation, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and various charities and representative bodies were given permission to intervene. The Supreme Court upheld the appeal, overturned the Court of Session's decision, and unanimously held that the definitions of sex woman and man in the Equality Act refer to biological sex and that obtaining a gender recognition certificate does not change a person's sex for equality law purposes. The court held that the legacy equality legislation on which the Equality Act 2010 was based were based on a biological meaning of sex. This did not change when the Gender Recognition Act 2004 came into force. As the Equality Act was an amending and consolidating statute when it was enacted. It carried across the biological meaning of the terms man and woman and sex from the legacy legislation. Although the Gender Recognition Act provides that trans people with a gender recognition certificate are to be considered their acquired gender for all purposes, this rule is expressly disapplied where the words of legislation, whether enacted before or after the commencement of the Gender Recognition Act, are, on a careful consideration, interpreted in their context and having regard to their underlying purpose inconsistent with that rule. This exception applies to the Equality Act because its provisions relating to sex discrimination, including those relating to pregnancy and maternity, can only be interpreted as referring to a person's biological sex. Interpreting sex to mean the sex certified by a gender recognition certificate, as the Court of Session had, would cut across the definitions of man and woman. In turn, this would lead to numerous legal and practical problems in the application of the Equality Act and its exemptions. Therefore, the correct interpretation of the Equality Act relies on a biological meaning of the phrases sex, man and woman. This biological understanding of equality law does not cause disadvantage to people who are trans, irrespective of whether they have a gender recognition certificate. because they can still benefit from the Equality Act's protection in various other ways including via the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Trans people are also protected against perceived or associated direct discrimination, harassment or victimisation related to the sex they identify with. Likewise, they can claim indirect sex discrimination if they suffer the same disadvantage as those with the sex they identify with, even though they do not share that sex. The Supreme Court decision clarifies our understanding of the Equality Act 2010 and its exceptions. The Court was keen to stress that the decision does not mean trans people can be mistreated in the workplace or society. Nevertheless, the Court's decision has significant implications for numerous day-to-day issues in the workplace and across wider society. One such area is the provision and use of single-sex toilets and changing rooms. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has issued interim guidance on this. and fuller guidance is expected over the summer. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.
Share
Embed
You may also like
Should expert evidence on an employer’s defence have been allowed in an equal pay claim?
Was an employer liable for a discriminatory comment made by an employee to their union rep?
Was disciplining for criticising gender-critical views constructive unfair dismissal?
Can an extended period of sick leave prior to leaving make a non-compete clause unenforceable?
