How to respond to my employer- legal uncertainty SC ruling

[Thethingswedoforlove]

They have said that they are waiting for an EHRC update because of the legal uncertainty stemming from the SC ruling. I have pointed out that things are now clearer than ever and that they need to get on with the business of obeying the law (stonewall captured organisation). Apparently there is uncertainty on how employers can balance the rights of all protected groups as required under the equality act. They seem to believe that because some other organisations (including law firms) have made this point somehow there is cause for concern and to wait until EHRC have done more. How can I make my point any more clearly? I am very upset about it.

I think you've made your point they've made theirs.
Lots of organisations are taking same approach tbh and there absolutely is uncertainty as to how to meet obligations to all groups currently.

Take a look at Sex Matters. The law is crystal clear (Workplace Regs). The powerful trans lobbyists are continuing with their hysterical wails in order to panic organisations. The SC judgement didn't make a new law - it confirmed what the law has always been. It's just that organisations believed the Stonewall lies.
This will pass. Some organisations refusing to comply will have to hope that they don't get legally challenged in the interim.

sex-matters.org/posts/updates/why-are-lawyers-encouraging-confusion-about-the-law/

@MrsOvertonsWindow thabk you

The guidance comes out for consultation next week which will last 6 weeks. Do take care if yours is a captured organisation - the trans bullies are always ready to hunt down women pointing out the law.

But the Supreme Court has spoken and organisations will have to comply.

Patience maybe the best approach. However, the obvious one is asking if they have checked with their insurer that they would be covered if someone took them to ET.

There is the basic problem that you cannot let women have their protections in law and let men go into whatever spaces they want. That's the only real issue here.

This is not a conflict in law; merely that the men are very noisy, and women are very unimportant, so saying no to men seems like too big a deal to do.

There is hope on many fronts that somehow it will be found that women's rights can be overturned, and that this would be a good thing.

It is not being helped by the long wait for the EHRC's 'final guidance' and the hope that this will say no, they didn't mean it, women don't have rights that upset men, and a very weak government that is looking hard in the other direction. I agree with PP, insurers and report to the EHRC.

They may come round OP. I think many companies really bought into the whole set of ideas pushed by SW etc al, and they are now quite discombobulated. They are waiting to see what direction all the others go in before doing anything.

But I suspect over the next month or so there will be a lot more clarity, and the more captured workplaces will be over their shock.

May be worth reading Naomi Cunningham's article on the other thread for ideas and possibly quotes.

A key one is the 'balancing of rights' - she explains how one man in a woman's space impacts on the privacy, dignity and rights of every actual and potential woman user of that space, and it cannot be framed as 'proportionate'.

But the bottom line is the whole feeling that it's wrong to say no to men, and women just aren't important. A key question really is how does employer intend to enable men to use spaces of their choice - which is NOT a right anywhere in law in the UK or Human Rights law, Michael Foran's article today goes into this in depth - and still keep their legal obligations to meet women's protections in law. The two things are not compatible, you cannot 'balance' them.

EHRC Interim Guidelines post Supreme Court ruling are the ones employers and "other duty bearers" should follow
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5329755-ehrc-interim-guidelines-post-supreme-court-ruling-are-the-ones-employers-and-other-duty-bearers-should-follow

If you're specifically talking about single sex facilities then this page from Sex Matters is very good with steps to take: https://sex-matters.org/posts/publications/workplace-toilets-know-your-rights/

If its wider policies, then I think it is a wait and see approach until the the final EHRC guidelines are probably the best bet right now.

Here is Michael Foran interviewed for WRN where he talks about the SC ruling. He has some interesting things to say about companies that don't/won't comply with the law.

And this is the article.

ukconstitutionallaw.org/2025/05/15/michael-foran-for-women-scotland-is-legal-recognition-of-biological-sex-a-violation-of-human-rights/

There really is no uncertainty. Single-sex spaces are single-sex, and that's that. Everyone is either male or female and has a space to use. "Gender-neutral" (mixed-sex) can also be provided.

Where is the confusion?

T depends if they’re breaking the law in the meantime and if so which ones. For example if they’re not providing single sex toilets then the health and safety executive have confirmed they expect them to be implemented- sex matters have shared a letter from them

if HR won’t take action I’d send a copy to the director with H&S responsibility pointing out they’re in breach

Indeed. The confusion is the confected outrage of men finally being told no. As all women who've experienced abusive relationships know, these men don't suddenly behave in a civilised and thoughtful manner easily.
We're currently observing major tantrums which will only ease as they're repeatedly and firmly told NO.

Not sure what the issue is, as like it or not, once the court has ruled, it becomes the law.

The EHRC has provided Interim Guidance.

So there is no uncertainty about the ruling. But yes how people, employers then act on it, is in its early stages. That's why I posted the link to the EHRC guidelines thread which shows immediately what should be acted on.

And now the House of Commons Library have provided a briefing on the decision which is in other words the briefing for MPs. Not sure what could be more final than that.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5335214-house-of-commons-briefing-on-the-implications-of-the-supreme-court-ruling

ie it is up to an employer or "other duty bearers" to uphold the ruling that sex means biological ie in relation to toilets, changing rooms, provide single sex provision.

How they provide for trans identified people is up to them to decide, but it can not be at the expense of single sex (biological) provision.

I think the real issue is the social contagion of Stonewall's law.

In terms of the legislation, the only legally recognised "trans people" are those with a GRC or on the route to a GRC.

However, many people including employers, think that self identity is the law.

So on one level I sympathise with those having to pander to what in fact is a life style choice, which has via the media as much as anybody, made it seem that the whole of society should accept this life style choice a having a legal status.

Employers and others are going to have to deal with the fact that they were too easily taken in, or didn't check the credentials of who they got their advice from in the first place.

Just out of interest, what is it that your employer feels they cant act on.

Is it toilets?

Is it about equal representation on advisory groups?

Or ...

I despair. Have heard today my teaching union challenging the ruling? 🙄

That isn’t clear. Everything as far as I am aware. But the loo thing is the one bothering me at the moment when it seems just so so clear what the answer is. But maybe I do just need to be patient and let it play out as they will get it eventually. I’m sure they will. They have implemented every stonewall law going and every stonewall policy. It will take some time to unwind it.

This is brilliant thank you. I have watched it all. I wish I could get my employer to watch it.

Thank you

Yes it must be a nightmare. All these captured work places.

Not just what they have put women through, but now not wanting to admit they should have listened to women in the first place!

I would have thought the Interim Guidelines from the EHRC was a good starting point.

It says it is for employers and "duty bearers" and apart from clarifying what the Supreme Court ruling said in plain english, has prioritised providing guidelines on toilets!

Its funny isn't it. How easily responsible adults who having found they have been breaking the law, now dont wont to admit it. Let alone set out to start abiding by the law.

You could try something along the lines of - “What is clear is that a policy of not providing single sex loos/changing rooms/whatever has been illegal for at least 15 years. I understand you may need time to come up with better accommodations for some other groups, but you can rectify this long standing act of unlawful discrimination immediately.”