Sex Discrimination

Authorities (16)

• Corbett v Corbett [1971] P 83; [1970] 2 All ER 33 [judgment]
  Ormrod J

  2 All ER 33 - Gender; established the biological test for sex (chromosomes/gonads/genitals) which stood until the Gender Recognition Act.

• Ministry of Defence v Jeremiah [1980] QB 87
  Lord Denning (Master of the Rolls), Lord Justice Brandon, Lord Justice Brightman

  Sex discrimination; requiring men to do dirty work (making munitions) and not women was unlawful discrimination.

• R v Birmingham City Council ex p EOC [1989] AC 1155
  Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Templeman, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton and Lord Goff of Chieveley

  Education; sex discrimination; providing fewer grammar school places for girls than boys was unlawful.

• James v Eastleigh Borough Council [1990] ICR 554 [judgment]
  Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Griffiths, Lord Ackner, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Lowry

  Discrimination; 'but for' test; charging men for swimming when women went free (pension age) was discrimination.

• R v Secretary of State for Employment ex parte EOC [1994] ICR 317 [judgment]
  Lord Keith, Lord Jauncey, Lord Lowry, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Slynn

  Indirect discrimination; qualifying thresholds. The House of Lords held that the qualifying thresholds for claiming unfair dismissal and redundancy payment were indirectly discriminatory against women and thus unlawful. A landmark case that led to removal of hours-based qualifying thresholds for employment rights.

• P v S and Cornwall County Council Case C-13/94 P v S and Cornwall County Council [1996] ECR I-2143; [1996] ICR 795; [1996] IRLR 347; ECLI:EU:C:1996:170, Court of Justice of the European Communities (Full Court), 30 April 1996 [judgment]
  Full Court: G C Rodríguez Iglesias, President; C N Kakouris, D A O Edward, J-P Puissochet and G Hirsch (Presidents of Chambers); G F Mancini, F A Schockweiler, P J G Kapteyn (Rapporteur), J L Murray, H Ragnemalm and L Sevón, Judges; Advocate General G Tesauro

  Sex discrimination; gender reassignment; scope of the Equal Treatment Directive. On a reference from the Industrial Tribunal at Truro, the ECJ held that Article 5(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC precludes the dismissal of a transsexual person for a reason related to gender reassignment.

• London Underground Ltd v Edwards (No 2) [1999] ICR 494
  Lord Justice Swinton Thomas, Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Potter

  Discrimination; indirect; a shift system disadvantaging single mothers was indirect sex discrimination.

• R v Secretary of State for Employment ex parte Seymour-Smith [2000] IRLR 263 [judgment]
  Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Goff of Chievley, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn

  Unfair dismissal; qualifying period; the 2-year qualifying period (then) was indirectly discriminatory against women but justified.

• West Yorkshire Police v A (No 2) [2002] ICR 552 [judgment]
  Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Justice Buxton, Lord Justice Keene

  Discrimination; gender reassignment; rejection of a trans woman was unlawful.

• Croft v Royal Mail Group [2003] IRLR 592 [judgment]
  Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Jonathan Parker, Lord Justice Keene

  Discrimination; gender reassignment; an employer can require a trans person to use the toilet of their birth sex pre-GRC (Historic).

• Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v A [2004] UKHL 21; [2004] IRLR 573; [2004] ICR 806 [judgment]
  Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lady Hale, Lord Carswell

  1 AC 51 - Discrimination; gender reassignment; rejection of a trans woman for a police role was unlawful direct discrimination.

• British Airways plc v Starmer [2005] IRLR 862 [judgment]
  The Honourable Mr Justice Burton

  Indirect discrimination; a requirement to work full-time acts as a detriment to women with childcare responsibilities.

• Timothy James Consulting Ltd v Wilton [2015] IRLR 368 [judgment]
  Singh J

  Sex discrimination and harassment; EAT held that while pregnancy/maternity are not directly protected characteristics for harassment under s.26 EqA, comments concerning pregnancy can constitute sex-related harassment because pregnancy is unique to women.

• For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers [2023] CSIH 37 [judgment]
  Lord Justice Clerk (Lady Dorrian), Lord Malcolm, Lord Pentland

  Sex discrimination; definition of sex; for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, 'sex' is a biological concept. A Gender Recognition Certificate modifies sex for some legal purposes but does not redefine biological sex in the context of the Equality Act's single-sex exceptions.

• R (Good Law Project Ltd) v Commission for Equality and Human Rights [2026] EWHC 279 (Admin)

  Discrimination; single-sex facilities; EHRC guidance. The High Court held that the EHRC's interim update on single-sex facilities following For Women Scotland was not unlawful. The guidance accurately stated the law: in workplaces, single-sex facilities must be provided unless the facilities are in a separate room lockable from the inside for use by one person at a time; 'sex' means biological sex. The update was not required to be comprehensive. GLP Ltd lacked standing; individual claimants had standing but the challenge was dismissed.

• Kelly v Leonardo UK Ltd Case No: 8001497/2024 [judgment]
  Employment Judge Michelle Sutherland

  Discrimination; toilets; inclusive policy based on gender identity was objectively justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, though harassment claims can still succeed on specific facts. The judgment attempts to maintain terminology consistent with the Supreme Court's 'For Women Scotland' decision.