The Supreme Court has handed down its decision in the case of For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers, confirming that the terms ‘woman’ and ‘man’ in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex. This decision could have important consequences for employers, particularly in areas involving single-sex spaces, diversity policies, and colleague interactions.

While the case itself was not directly related to employment law, the ruling clarifies how the legal definitions apply in practice. It also confirms that the protected characteristic of gender reassignment remains unchanged, and individuals are still protected from discrimination regardless of whether they have a Gender Recognition Certificate.

With potential implications for workplace policies, social media use, and managing conflicting beliefs among staff, this is an area employers should be aware of.

If you're planning collective redundancies or a business transfer, it's essential to understand when and how to elect employee representatives. Recent changes to TUPE legislation may also affect your obligations, especially if you're a smaller employer.

This quick guide outlines the key steps, including when elections are required, how to run them, how many representatives you need, and what to do if no one volunteers. It also covers legal protections for representatives and your duties as an employer.

Whether you're navigating redundancy consultation or a TUPE process, getting this right is crucial.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has clarified how Employment Tribunals should approach the two-stage test in indirect sex discrimination cases involving childcare responsibilities. While acknowledging the well-established “childcare disparity” that often places women at a disadvantage, the EAT emphasised that tribunals must still assess the actual impact of the policy in question.

In Perkins v Marston’s Holdings Ltd, the Employment Tribunal initially ruled in favour of the claimant, finding that a new travel requirement indirectly discriminated against women. However, the EAT overturned this decision, stating that the Employment Tribunal failed to properly evaluate evidence showing how the policy affected the wider workforce.

This case highlights the need for employers to carefully assess and justify workplace changes, especially where they may affect employees with caring responsibilities.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has overturned a £10,000 injury to feelings award in a pregnancy/maternity discrimination case, ruling it was manifestly excessive given the limited evidence of harm.

The case centred on a grievance email that was blocked by the employer’s firewall. Although the original Employment Tribunal found this was an act of discrimination, the EAT concluded that the impact was not significant enough to justify a middle Vento band award.

This ruling highlights the importance of properly investigating grievances—especially where IT issues may have interfered—and ensuring responses aren’t delayed or dismissed.