2 All ER 33 - Gender; established the biological test for sex (chromosomes/gonads/genitals) which stood until the Gender Recognition Act.
Sex discrimination; requiring men to do dirty work (making munitions) and not women was unlawful discrimination.
Education; sex discrimination; providing fewer grammar school places for girls than boys was unlawful.
Discrimination; 'but for' test; charging men for swimming when women went free (pension age) was discrimination.
Indirect discrimination; qualifying thresholds. The House of Lords held that the qualifying thresholds for claiming unfair dismissal and redundancy payment were indirectly discriminatory against women and thus unlawful. A landmark case that led to removal of hours-based qualifying thresholds for employment rights.
Sex discrimination; gender reassignment; scope of the Equal Treatment Directive. On a reference from the Industrial Tribunal at Truro, the ECJ held that Article 5(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC precludes the dismissal of a transsexual person for a reason related to gender reassignment.
Discrimination; indirect; a shift system disadvantaging single mothers was indirect sex discrimination.
Unfair dismissal; qualifying period; the 2-year qualifying period (then) was indirectly discriminatory against women but justified.
Discrimination; gender reassignment; rejection of a trans woman was unlawful.
Discrimination; gender reassignment; toilet facilities during transition. The Court of Appeal (Pill, Jonathan Parker and Keene LJJ) held that an employer did not unlawfully discriminate under s.2A of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 by requiring an employee at the start of her real life test to use a unisex disabled toilet rather than the female facilities. Presenting as a woman does not of itself confer a right to use women's toilets; the tribunal must judge when the employee has become entitled to be treated as a woman, giving weight to her self-definition without being bound by it [47]-[49]. The comparators are non-transsexual employees of either sex, and a temporary requirement to use separate facilities was not less favourable treatment [74]-[76]. The employer must respect the employee's dignity and both sides must act reasonably to overcome the difficulties [52]. Decided before the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010.
Discrimination; gender reassignment; direct discrimination; genuine occupational qualification. The House of Lords held that refusing to appoint a post-operative trans woman as a police constable was unlawful direct sex discrimination. Read in the light of P v S and Cornwall County Council and Goodwin v United Kingdom, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 required a person who had undergone gender reassignment to be treated as being of the acquired gender, so the genuine occupational qualification relied on, the need for officers to search suspects of their own sex, could not justify the refusal.
Indirect discrimination; a requirement to work full-time acts as a detriment to women with childcare responsibilities.
Sex discrimination and harassment; EAT held that while pregnancy/maternity are not directly protected characteristics for harassment under s.26 EqA, comments concerning pregnancy can constitute sex-related harassment because pregnancy is unique to women.
Sex discrimination; definition of sex; for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, 'sex' is a biological concept. A Gender Recognition Certificate modifies sex for some legal purposes but does not redefine biological sex in the context of the Equality Act's single-sex exceptions.
Equality Act; definition of 'sex'; confirmed that 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex.
Discrimination; single-sex facilities; EHRC guidance. The High Court held that the EHRC's interim update on single-sex facilities following For Women Scotland was not unlawful. The guidance accurately stated the law: in workplaces, single-sex facilities must be provided unless the facilities are in a separate room lockable from the inside for use by one person at a time; 'sex' means biological sex. The update was not required to be comprehensive. GLP Ltd lacked standing; individual claimants had standing but the challenge was dismissed.
Case No. 4104864/2024 - Harassment; allowing a trans woman access to female changing rooms without managing the conflict with female staff rights was harassment.
Discrimination; toilets; inclusive policy based on gender identity was objectively justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, though harassment claims can still succeed on specific facts. The judgment attempts to maintain terminology consistent with the Supreme Court's 'For Women Scotland' decision.