HR: we are waiting for the result from the EHRC consultation before we do something.

[DenmarkStreet]

I got called into HR so that they could understand better why I was asking which measures they were taking following the supreme court decision.

It was all in all quite pleasant and non confrontational and I got to express my upset over my employer not being able to recognise me as a woman as they do not track biological sex and only gender.
With regards to the actual question, the response was that they will take no action until after the EHRC final guidance came out.

I'm guessing I'm not alone in hearing this?

I work for a relatively woke American company, but the dial down on these type of issues has been quite noticeable. It will be interesting to see what Pride month brings.

The EHRC has clearly said the law is the law, and duty bearers should comply immediately rather than waiting for the guidance (which is guidance, not law).

They've also said that the difference between the interim and final guidance will not be in their substantive advice on what the law is (because the law has been established and won't change), but simply that it will include a wider range of examples.

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

Even the Scottish Parliament has followed them!

And Baroness Falkner said it again on Women's Hour today. That should be a nice neutral source to quote to your workplace.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002cdzr?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

”I should emphasise for your listeners the Supreme Court judgement and clarification it provided is the law of the land and was the law of the land immediately. So all service providers should be getting their own legal advice on interpreting the judgement as of 16th April 2025.”

I got the same response - " we'll look at guidance as it's developed and consulted on...but as always anything we do will focus on ensuring we have an inclusive workplace for everyone."

'Inclusive for everyone.....'

Such a nonsense phrase, workplaces definitely don't need to be Inclusive of everyone.

They can be pretty EXCLUSIVE to only the people who work there, or use the service.

They can be EXCLUSIVE to people who aren't qualified, or become unable, to do the work.

They can be EXCLUSIVE of children, or the retired.

And you shouldn't have to be INCLUSIVE of people with views that compromise the rights of others, or are even illegal. You don't have to be INCLUSIVE of people who may well, because of their religion, not support gay marriage or homosexuality in general. But as long as they aren't overtly harassing people that do, that should not interfere with the business, no?

It's a nonsense phrase that NOONE would support in real life if they gave it two minutes of thought.....

I would point out that the Supreme Court judgment is the actual law and the EHRC guidance is the explanation for dummies.

The guidance isn't going to change in any substantive way between the interim version and the final version because the law is already clear.

So anyone who is not following the judgment/the interim guidance is knowingly breaking the law at this point.

So how are they making it inclusive for women who need single sex facilities?

Same response at my work place

it’s totally nonsense

Remind your HR department that the EHRC Code of Practice that is presently open for consultation is the "code of practice for services, public functions and associations".

It doesn't advise employers on their duties. There's no need to wait for a document not aimed at them as an employer.

This is useful legal advice for those in retail - especially for those companies who've decided to ignore the law. Well worth a read even if the business isn't in retail as it covers employee rights in this area generally:

www.theretailbulletin.com/retail-solutions/legal-do-retailers-have-to-provide-single-sex-toilets-and-changing-rooms-for-their-customers-and-staff-19-05-2025/

If the PCS can work this out:

‘It is important to remember that, irrespective of our personal views, any breach of the Equality Act 2010 may give rise to legal liability and, on that basis, we ask all delegates to use the facilities in accordance with the above.’
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5339719-pcs-tells-transgender-women-they-must-use-mens-toilets-at-annual-conference

Then so can anyone else.

This is about decision makers running scared of TRAs.

And telling women even when your case has been proven right we dont care enough about you to make any changes.

This. I don't understand why workplaces and other venues would ever think they could get away with breaking the law.

I don't understand why workplaces and other venues would ever think they could get away with breaking the law.

Because men's feelings are more important than women's rights!

I have been contemplating this today, as we left the meeting by saying that we would reconnect after the guidance was final. After reading your comments I am actually going to challenge this a bit more, and may also share the legal feminist update. The poor HR lady probably will have a more difficult conversation with her bosses in the US who has been much more woke.

She needs to tell her bosses in the US that in the UK we follow UK law.

Seriously fucking fed up with all the yanks thinking this concerns them in anyway or that their views are relevant.

Well done OP. I'm not letting this rest either. We need to keep up the pressure.

Could you ask HR woman if she has sought external legal advice? Ask her if she has looked at this from a risk perspective...risk of legal challenge, risk to reputation if an employee made unlawful practices public.

Depending on what your company does, could there be an insurance risk?

Coming back to this point, the Maya Forstater case happened in large part due to bosses in the US thinking it's fine to just fire people if you don't share their views.

So it is worth pointing out to your HR manager that following the advice of people in Chicago or wherever, who aren't well informed about UK law, is a good way to find yourself standing in a UK court giving evidence about why your organisation broke the law.

And having all your emails and WhatsApps and slack messages read out in court with the worst possible interpretation of them.