The recent Supreme Court ruling on the legal interpretation of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 will have implications across public life, including in relation to schools and other education institutions.
The narrow point the court decided was whether the appointment of a trans woman with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) counts as the appointment of a woman in respect of the goal set for some Scottish public authorities of ensuring half of their non-executive members are women.
In the court’s judgment, it does not, invalidating the Scottish government’s guidance on that point.
While GRCs are not available to individuals under 18, the ruling brings long-standing issues relating to gender-questioning pupils into sharp focus.
There is currently a lack of clear and comprehensive guidance on this topic for schools in England. The two most recent publications are: the Equality and Human Rights Commission (“EHRC”) for schools, and the DfE’s draft non-statutory guidance on gender-questioning children.
The latter – a consultation document issued by the previous government – attracted a significant response and was never finalised. It dealt with practical issues such as name changes, the use of pronouns, single-sex spaces and sport.
It was broadly in line with the recent Supreme Court judgment insofar as it stated that schools’ legal duties regarding sex should be framed around biological sex. However, neither the guidance nor the judgment fully consider the complex legal issues arising from the scenarios schools regularly deal with.
Specifically, it is often necessary to balance safeguarding, data rights, regulatory and equality duties for pupils with different protected characteristics.
In April 2024, the Cass Review examined gender identity health services for children. It highlighted issues in relation to socially transitioning children of particular relevance to schools, but it did not offer specific guidance to the sector.
The ruling brings long-standing issues into sharp focus
Following the recent judgment, the EHRC have said they will work at pace to revise their code of practice in relation to services, public functions and associations, but have not said whether they will also review their technical guidance for schools.
It is hoped that this will be considered by the DfE and/or EHRC in the coming months, for instance as the government reviews its statutory guidance on Keeping Children Safe in Education.
In the meantime, there continue to be significant protections for trans people under the Equality Act which are relevant to pupils, staff and members of the wider school community.
The Supreme Court’s decision does not change the fact that gender reassignment is a protected characteristic under the act. The court emphasised this point, stating that trans people have exactly the same level of protection as other groups against discrimination, harassment and victimisation and therefore the judgment is not a rollback of rights on the scale some have suggested.
In relation to consequences for schools as employers, there may be some immediate impact. For example, trans employees are no longer able to make an equal pay claim based on the gender stated on their GRC (though they may still do so on the basis of their biological sex).
However, in terms of the practical, day-to-day management of trans employees, little has changed. We therefore urge caution before making significant changes to staff policies or practices. It may be that this case sets a precedent which will impact future judgments or guidance, but for the time being it is unlikely that major changes to working practices are needed.
That said, this is a very emotive issue for trans people and those with gender-critical beliefs (which can also be protected under the Equality Act). It may therefore be sensible to consider offering support and clarity to staff who may be directly or indirectly affected by the judgment.
Pending further guidance from the DfE or EHRC, it is important to proceed with caution, mindful of the whole school community.
Schools are advised to avoid a blanket approach, to look carefully at the circumstances of each case as it arises, and to take all relevant legal and practical considerations into account, seeking advice where necessary.
Your thoughts