CIPD (HR) guidance

[SeasonalKitsch]

I thought this might be useful for anyone keeping an eye on how their employer reacts.

Briefing | Supreme Court clarifies definition of “sex” in Equality Act

This ruling reaffirms sex-based rights that highlights the need for inclusive, lawful workplace practices for all. It is vital that HR and people managers navigate this with legal precision and empathy and compassion.

My employer has so far sent out a message which points to all the sources of support for trans colleagues, and reminds everyone that discriminating against them remains illegal. I await the “legal precision” and indeed the empathy and compassion for women…

And indeed empathy and compassion for gender critical men!

I’ve seen discussion on my LinkedIn feed with EDI experts warning that there will be a wave of tribunals/lawsuit as the last 10 years is unpicked. They also warn HR practitioners not to sound off on LinkedIn with personal opinions that don’t reflect the law because this puts their employers at risk. And also to beware of “experts” who are activists not professionals and will bring risks to the organisation.

Thanks. That reads as quite limited in scope but maybe it's right at this stage as a holding position until the EHRC produces their guidelines?

I was interested to read this guidance from an Education perspective which starts to unpick some of the issues for schools. Another poster linked it on a different thread and there are some very clear issues that schools with a transactivist approach must legally change (ie mixed sex changing rooms etc):

www.edapt.org.uk/blog/2025/04/supreme-court-ruling-schools-sex-definition/

Given the extent of the removal of women's rights, presumably we just continue to note the lack of concern or empathy for women 🙄

Universities will ignore the law, I am willing to bet. Unique situation where they are a workplace but employees use the same facilities as students. I don't think they'll risk upsetting the students.

And UCU are already campaigning against sex based rights.

Women who want single sex facilities in universities are going to struggle in many buildings I think.

My workplace is still using Stonewall guidance in training, I’m not sure how to get that changed

The law on toilet provision says that, where unisex facilities are provided, they must be fully enclosed cubicles with both toilets and basin within the cubicle. Schools are legally obliged to provide single sex toilets for pupilsg. So they will be affected by the SC clarification of the existing law. Are employers required to provide single sex toilets for staff? I'm fairly certain that businesses are not required to do so for customers.

The large fine that Sussex has received for failing to allow free speech re Kathleen Stock (£585,000) has apparently led to numerous other universities withdrawing their trans guidance policies. While I fully appreciate the self important ignorance found in HE, I suspect that open defiance of the law leading to discrimination against women won't last for that long & that eventually they'll be forced to comply.
It's not as if universities have a good record of winning discrimination cases against women to date - and that's before the SC judgment.

@MrsOvertonsWindow I just think this still relies on women challenging it. With jobs as they are, I can't see many women doing that.

I just checked and our trans policy is still up and unchanged and states they may use whichever facility they prefer.

I hope you're right though @MrsOvertonsWindow

A wave of lawsuits from whom? From women who have been discriminated against because for their employers not following the law (as it's now been clarified to be), for example, or by TRAs who are not happy with new provisions?

My employer is being taken to a tribunal later this year, and one of the aims is also to get the SEEN network shut down (as it's existence is apparently transphobic), but I'm wondering how that will play out now as the SEEN network have basically been advocating for what the Supreme Court has just ruled.

I know one HR professional who is very active on social media, and she has definitely been airing her personal opinion about this. Most recently some nonsense about Barbie and Ken not having genitals so it doesn't matter what people have in their pants...or something 🫤

Maybe I'm being too optimistic. Some places are so steeped in transactivism it's going to be hard work - and absolutely, women need to protect their careers first before wading in.
Certainly until the EHRC guidelines are issued, it'll be slow progress.

I work for a university too.

I had a look this morning - our transgender policy was updated yesterday but I don’t know what’s changed (it’s 30 pages long, I certainly don’t know it off by heart). It still explicitly says that transgender people should use the single sex facilities “according to the gender in which they present.”

I used to be an HR business partner, and have been sad about leaving it. I don’t think I feel so sad today, this is going to be such a minefield for HR! The law is clear but I can imagine what pushback they’ll get from the staff associations (v powerful here) and UCU.

Lawsuits from women being treated unfairly by employers breaking the law.

Wow That is an unequivocal article from CIPD. Support for all employees, review all policies etc.

I assume they are revising their own guidance.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/heeralgudka_picture-this-scenario-an-ownerceomd-goes-activity-7320344391741554691-icNz?utm_medium=ios_app&rcm=ACoAAAABgOAB4FVAx9GqrGXHhEBC5Siy7Df0BDQ&utm_source=social_share_send&utm_campaign=copy_link

It's going to take a fair bit of time to see what the full impact of this is. HR Professionals are only human and it's not realistic to expect policies to be updated immediately.

I’ve already seen employment lawyers from my firm liking/supporting a navel-gazing “clearly the SC are just wrong” post on LinkedIn from a transwoman we work with. If even the lawyers are captured, I don’t have much hope for the HR professionals they’re advising.

Presumably this is going to be one of those FAFO situations for some businesses. Ignore the law, smear the SC as bigots to be ignored - and then spend hundreds of thousands defending the indefensible 🙄

Im a charity boss and I have already started with policies - ensuring where we talk about sex we mean biological sex - and I have taken out the part in our trans policy where it says trans people can pee where they most identify. I'm holding fire publishing until i get legal advice. I keep seeing LinkedIn posts still talking about legitimate aim and proportionality but I don’t think this is right - this is how it was before.

It's absolutely understandable that you want to get changes given the once over by lawyers but personally I would not base my actions by what people say on LinkedIn. I'm not a lawyer, but I used to work in a legal department for a large company and am used to reading and interpreting legislation. The SC judgement (which I've read) is very clear, especially on matters such as changing facilites etc. It also includes examples. If TW are permitted to a women only space then it is no longer single sex, it is mixed. The guidance on the Sex Matters site contains a good summary

https://sex-matters.org/posts/publications/supreme-court-judgment-summary-and-practical-advice/

Yes sex matters guidance was excellent and the CIPD guidance was okay .i would not take guidance from LinkedIn - some of my peers in other charities locally are posting the wrong advice . I want to lawyer to give the policies a look ovet - they are on a retainer anyway.

Make a formal complaint. Or if you don’t feel able, let us know and one of us will do it!

Law is one of the most captured professions. Nearly all the magic circle law firms are stonewall champions

@Sibilantseamstress I can see ETs and civil cases from people on both sides of the argument.

RMW on Good Morning Britain said they would continue to use women’s toilets and if told not to implied there will be lawsuits. I expect RMW to lodge a claim.

I expect transpeople to lodge claims if they are barred from women’s toilets, changing rooms etc. As I understand it there are different laws for employers, schools and service providers.

As an employer what you do may depend on the type and number of toilets you have. I have worked in buildings with multiple toilets with stalls and disabled toilets. I would look at converting at least one men’s and one women’s toilets to unisex. I think unisex works best as it’s good for non/binary and reinforces its based on sex.

Make it clear to staff they use toilets based on biological sex or they can use the new unisex toilets. I know there will be howls of protest but also point out the disabled toilets are to be prioritised for disabled employees but are also unisex.

TRAs can’t now complain about unisex toilets as they are a provision they can use.

I think service providers may move towards unisex toilets but the regulations will require them to make changes. A lot of theatres may find because they have stalls they have to revert to single sex.

I also expect claims on H & S grounds because sadly people have died or been left disabled because the toilet provision was unisex enclosed rooms rather than single sex with stalls and this delayed medical help.