Welcome to this month's briefing for HR teams and in-house employment counsel – bringing you this month’s employment law highlights in an easy-to-read package.

Sex, gender and toilets

In one of the most widely-debated judgments of recent years, the Supreme Court has ruled that the word “sex”, for the purposes of the Equality Act, means a person’s biological sex.

The case was brought by a pressure group against the Scottish Government, which had sought to issue guidance to the effect that a person holding a gender recognition certificate, or GRC, ought to be regarded as being of their certificated sex. That stance was, the Scottish Government maintained, warranted by the terms of the Gender Recognition Act, which confirms that a person holding a GRC is to regarded as being of their certificated sex for all purposes. However, the Gender Recognition Act goes on to disapply that general statement where another piece of legislation is incompatible with it. The questions for the Supreme Court were, in essence, whether the Equality Act’s use of the words “female” and “woman” could be read to include transwomen (people born biologically male but holding a GRC certifying them as female), and whether the word “sex” means biological sex or certificated sex. If those readings were unworkable in practice, the Equality Act would be incompatible with the Gender Recognition Act, and so the general rule that a person holding a GRC should be regarded as being of their certificated sex for all purposes would be disapplied.

The Supreme Court’s analysis, of the genesis of the Equality Act, the human rights cases that have examined the area in the UK and overseas, and of the practical implications of both readings, are extremely thorough. The Court’s clear conclusion was that a biological sex reading was correct.

The implications of the decision for organisations running single-sex sports, for charities offering single-sex support groups, for leisure centres with single-sex changing rooms, and for employers needing to decide how to support trans employees, and how to deal with access to workplace toilet facilities, are far from straightforward. A great deal of the reaction to the judgment has focussed on toilets. The Equality Act and the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 need to be read alongside the judgment, and alongside interim guidance published shortly after the Supreme Court’s ruling by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). Each employer will need to assess its workforce’s requirements, its existing provision, and the scope for changes to be made, and may well need legal advice before reaching any firm conclusions.

The EHRC is likely to publish fuller guidance in the future, and is also consulting on proposed amendments to its Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations, which affects any organisation offering services to the public. 

View the Supreme Court’s judgment.

View the EHRC’s interim guidance.

View the EHRC’s consultation on services.

Immigration White Paper

The Immigration White Paper announced a number of changes affecting UK employers and their sponsored workers. Our earlier note summarises the proposals in the Immigration White Paper published on 12 May 2025.

Reflecting on these changes, we now provide our thoughts on what these mean for Skilled Worker visa sponsors and employers. Companies from different industries will be impacted in different ways but here are key takeaways to prepare for the changes to come.

While the details of how some of the changes will be implemented remains unknown, there are opportunities for sponsors to review their position internally to better support their workforce. 

A summary of the key changes and our recommendations can be found in this article.