gender reassignment equality act

• Our mission, vision and values
• Advisory group
• Where sex matters
• Data and statistics
• Freedom of speech
• Legal system
• Relationships
• Schools and safeguarding
• Single-sex services
• Universities
• Legal opinion says promotion policy discriminates on basis of gender-critical beliefs
• Getting “sex” right in digital verification services
• The Cass Review is a damning indictment of what the NHS has been doing to children 
• How gender ideology broke the census
• “Misgendering” and the Scottish Hate Crime Act
• Take action
• Ask your MP to read our report and call for action now
• Kickstart our next campaign
• Update your child’s school on the latest guidance
• Use School Check to find out if a school has been captured by gender-identity ideology
• Call out bad reporting on sex and gender with Bad Media Watch
• Donate to Sex Matters
• Leave us a donation in your will
• Briefings for MPs
• FAQs – sex and gender

FAQs – gender reassignment

• Campaign – sex in the Equality Act
• Groups defending sex-based rights
• For employers and employees
• For journalists
• For parents
• For service providers
• For teachers
• Intimidation, threats and violence by trans-rights activists 
• Transactivist violence – on film
• Log of academics targeted
• Memo archive
• Sector networks
• Submissions
• Timeline of efforts to sabotage the UK’s equality watchdog

What does it mean for someone to have the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment” under the Equality Act 2010? The government, public bodies, many employers and even employment tribunals are often confused about this.

Having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment does not mean that someone’s sex has changed or give them the right to make other people pretend that it has. 

These FAQs cover the definition of the characteristic and who it covers – and what this means for employers and service providers. 

Download these gender reassignment FAQs as a PDF.

What is the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment”?

What does it mean to have this characteristic , who can have this characteristic , does having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment mean that a person must be treated as the opposite sex , does the equality act outlaw “misgendering”, is it harassment to “out” a person as transgender , can employers have policies which require people to refer to transgender people in particular situations in a particular way , what should employers and service providers do to avoid the risk of harassment claims , should schools have rules about “misgendering”.

The Equality Act 2010 at Section 7 defines the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment” as relating to a person who is: 

“proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.”

The law refers to this as being “transsexual”. But the term more commonly used today is “transgender” or “trans”. This broadly relates to anyone at any stage of a personal process. For example:

• A man tells his employer that he is considering “transitioning” and is seeing a therapist with the potential result of being referred for medical treatment.
• A man identifies as a “transwoman” without having any surgery or treatment.
• A woman identified as a “transman” for several years and took testosterone, but has now stopped and “detransitioned”.

The Equality Act protects people from direct and indirect discrimination, harassment or victimisation in situations that are covered by the Equality Act, such as in the workplace or when receiving goods or services.

Direct discrimination

Direct discrimination is when you are treated worse than another person or other people because:

• you have a protected characteristic
• someone thinks you have that protected characteristic (known as discrimination by perception)
• you are connected to someone with that protected characteristic (known as discrimination by association).

For example: an employee tells their employer that they intend to transition. Their employer alters their role against their wishes to avoid them having contact with clients.

The comparator is a person who is materially similar in other aspects but does not have the protected characteristic (“is not trans”). 

Indirect discrimination

Indirect discrimination happens when a policy applies in the same way for everybody but disadvantages a group of people who share a protected characteristic, and you are disadvantaged as part of this group. This is unlawful unless the person or organisation applying the policy can show that there is a good reason for the policy. This is known as objective justification .

For example: an airport has a general policy of searching passengers according to their sex. Everyone travelling needs to follow the same security procedures and processes, but it makes transgender travellers feel uncomfortable. This could be indirect discrimination, so the airport reviews its policy and changes it so that any passenger may ask to be searched by a staff member of either sex and have a private search, out of view of other passengers. 

Harassment is unwanted behaviour connected with a protected characteristic that has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity or creating a degrading, humiliating, hostile, intimidating or offensive environment.

For example: a transgender person is having a drink in a pub with friends and is referred to by the bar staff as “it” and mocked for their appearance.

Victimisation

Victimisation is when you are treated badly because you have made a complaint of gender-reassignment discrimination under the Equality Act or are supporting someone who has made a complaint of gender-reassignment discrimination. For example:

For example: a person proposing to undergo gender reassignment is being harassed by a colleague at work. He makes a complaint about the way his colleague is treating him and is sacked.

The Equality Act also provides that if a person is absent from work because of gender-reassignment treatment, their employer cannot treat them worse than they would be treated if absent for illness or injury. 

Does a person have to be under medical supervision?

No. This was explicitly removed from the definition in 2010. Gender reassignment can be a personal process. 

Must they have a gender-recognition certificate or be in the process of applying for one?

No. The protected characteristic is defined without reference to the Gender Recognition Act.

Do they have to have made a firm decision to transition? 

No. Protection against discrimination and harassment attaches to a person who is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process).

During the passage of the Equality Act, the Solicitor General stated in Parliament: 

“Gender reassignment, as defined, is a personal process, so there is no question of having to do something medical, let alone surgical, to fit the definition. “Someone who was driven by a characteristic would be in the process of gender reassignment, however intermittently it manifested itself.  “At what point [proposing to undergo] amounts to ‘considering undergoing’ a gender reassignment is pretty unclear. However, proposing’ suggests a more definite decision point, at which the person’s protected characteristic would immediately come into being. There are lots of ways in which that can be manifested – for instance, by making their intention known. Even if they do not take a single further step, they will be protected straight away. Alternatively, a person might start to dress, or behave, like someone who is changing their gender or is living in an identity of the opposite sex. That too, would mean they were protected. If an employer is notified of that proposal, they will have a clear obligation not to discriminate against them.” 

In the case of Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover , a male employee told his employer that he was “gender fluid” and thought of himself as “part of a spectrum, transitioning from the male to the female gender identity”. He said to his line manager: “I have no plans for surgical transition.” He started wearing women’s clothing to work, asked to be referred to by a woman’s name and raised a question about which toilets he should use. The Employment Tribunal concluded that he was covered by the protected characteristic. 

Can children have the protected characteristic? 

Yes. In the case of AA, AK & Ors v NHS England , NHS England argued that children who are waiting for assessment by the Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) do not have the protected characteristic as they have not yet reached the stage of proposing to transition. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument. It noted that the definition of “gender reassignment” does not require medical intervention and can include actions such as changing “one’s name and/or how one dresses or does one’s hair”.

The court concluded:

“There is no reason of principle why a child could not satisfy the definition in s.7 provided they have taken a settled decision to adopt some aspect of the identity of the other gender.”

It noted that the decision did not have to be permanent. 

Is “Gillick competence” relevant to the protected characteristic?

No. “Gillick competence” refers to the set of criteria that are used for establishing whether a child has the capacity to provide consent for medical treatment, based on whether they have sufficient understanding and intelligence to fully understand it.

Having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (that is, being able to bring a claim for gender-reassignment discrimination) does not depend on having any diagnosis or medical treatment. Therefore Gillick competence is not relevant to the Equality Act criteria. 

No. There is nothing in the Equality Act which means that people with the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment” need to be treated in a particular way, or differently from people without the characteristic. 

Article 9 and 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights protect the fundamental human rights of freedom of speech and freedom of belief. 

In the case of Forstater v CGDE [2021] it was established that the belief that men are male and women are female, and that this cannot change and is important, is protected under Article 9 and in relation to belief discrimination in the Equality Act. 

This means that employers and service providers must not harass or discriminate against people because they recognise that “transwomen” are men and “transmen” are women. Employers and service providers cannot require people to believe that someone has changed sex, or impose a blanket constraint on expressing their belief. 

No. “Misgendering” is not defined or outlawed by the Equality Act. 

In general, people who object to “misgendering” mean any reference to a person who identifies as transgender by words that relate to their sex. This can include using the words woman, female, madam, lady, daughter, wife, mother, she, her and so on about someone who identifies as a “transman”, or man, male, sir, gentleman, son, husband, father, he, him and so on about someone who identifies as a “transwoman”. 

Any form of words may be harassment, but this depends on the circumstances and the purpose and effect of the behaviour. Harassment is unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic that has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for a person.   An employment tribunal would also consider:

• that person’s perception
• the other circumstances of the case
• whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.

Tribunals have emphasised that when judging harassment context is everything, and warned against a culture of hypersensitivity to the perception of alleged victims.

Employment tribunal judgments

As Lord Justice Nicholas Underhill found in Dhellwal v Richmond Pharmacology [2009], a case decided under the Race Relations Act:

“What the tribunal is required to consider is whether, if the claimant has experienced those feelings or perceptions, it was reasonable for her to do so. Thus if, for example, the tribunal believes that the claimant was unreasonably prone to take offence, then, even if she did genuinely feel her dignity to have been violated, there will have been no harassment within the meaning of the section.”

In the Forstater case, the employment appeal tribunal said that it was not proportionate to “impose a requirement on the Claimant to refer to a trans woman as a woman to avoid harassment”. It said that:

“ Whilst the Claimant’s belief, and her expression of them by refusing to refer to a trans person by their preferred pronoun, or by refusing to accept that a person is of the acquired gender stated on a GRC, could amount to unlawful harassment in some circumstances, it would not always have that effect. In our judgment, it is not open to the Tribunal to impose in effect a blanket restriction on a person not to express those views irrespective of those circumstances.”

In the case of de Souza v Primark Stores [2017] , a transgender claimant who went by the name of Alexandra, but whose legal name was Alexander, was found to have been harassed by colleagues who made a point of using the male form of name when they knew he did not want them to, but not by being issued with a “new starter” badge that showed his legal name. 

In the case of Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover [2020] , a male claimant who wore women’s clothing  to work was judged to have been exposed to harassment by colleagues saying “What the hell is that?”, “So what’s going on? Are you going to have your bits chopped off?”, “Is this for Halloween?” and referring to the claimant as “it”. 

Not necessarily. 

A person can be “outed” as transgender in two different ways: 

• Their sex is commonly known and recorded, but their transsexualism is not (for example a man who cross-dresses at the weekend and is considering transitioning is “outed” at work by someone who has seen them at a social event).
• They are disappointed in the expectation of being treated as one sex when they are actually the other (for example a person who identifies as a “trans woman” is referred to as male by a woman in a changing room).

In Grant v HM Land Registry [2011] , which concerned the unwanted disclosure that an employee was gay, Lord Justice Elias found that this did not amount to harassment: 

“Furthermore, even if in fact the disclosure was unwanted, and the claimant was upset by it, the effect cannot amount to a violation of dignity, nor can it properly be described as creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. Tribunals must not cheapen the significance of these words. They are an important control to prevent trivial acts causing minor upsets being caught by the concept of harassment.”

The perception (or hope) of transgender people that they “pass” as the opposite sex is often not realistic. Their sex is not in fact hidden, but is politely ignored by some people in some situations. It is not reasonable for them to be offended by other people recognising their sex, particularly if they are seeking access to a single-sex service. Acknowledging someone’s sex, particularly where there is a good reason, is unlikely to be harassment. 

In the first-instance case of Chapman v Essex Police , a transgender police officer felt embarrassed and upset when a police control-room operator double-checked his identity over the radio because his male voice did not match the female name that the operator could see. The tribunal did not uphold a complaint of harassment, finding that the claimant was “too sensitive in the circumstances”.

Yes, but those policies must be proportionate. Employers cannot have blanket policies against “misgendering”, but can have specific policies concerning how staff should refer to transgender people in particular situations. Organisations should recognise that these policies constrain the expression of belief, and therefore they should seek to achieve their specific aims in the least intrusive way possible.

When determining whether an objection to a belief being expressed is justified, a court will undertake a balancing exercise. This test is set out in the case of Bank Mellat v HM Treasury :

• Is the objective the organisation seeks to achieve sufficiently important to justify the limitation of the right in question?
• Is the limitation rationally connected to that objective?
• Is a less intrusive limitation possible that does not undermine the achievement of the objective in question?
• Does the importance of the objective outweigh the severity of the limitation on the rights of the person concerned?

For example: 

• A company provides a specialist dress service to transsexual and transvestites. The men who use the service expect to be called “she” and “her” and referred to as Madam. It is justified for the employer to train and require staff to use this language when serving customers. 
• Staff at a full-service restaurant greet customers as “Sir” and “Madam” as they arrive. The restaurant’s policy is that staff should use the terms which appear most appropriate based on gendered appearance, and to defer to customer preference if one is expressed. This is justified by the aim of creating the service and ambience that the restaurant owners seek to provide. 
• A public body assesses claimants for medical benefits, including individuals with mental-health conditions. It directs its staff to refer to claimants using the terms which the claimants prefer, including using opposite-sex pronouns when requested, in order to make them feel comfortable. However, it recognises that in recording medical information, assessors must be able to be accurate about claimants’ sex. This is justified by the aim of providing a service that is accessible and effective for vulnerable clients. 

The case of David Mackereth v AMP and DWP concerned a doctor who lost his job undertaking claimant health assessments for the Department for Work and Pensions because he refused to comply with its policy on using claimants’ preferred pronouns. The employer’s policy was found not to have amounted to unlawful harassment or discrimination against Dr Mackereth, in the particular circumstances of his job. However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal stated that “misgendering” would not necessarily be harassment: 

“Such behaviour may well provide grounds for a complaint of discrimination or harassment but, as the EAT in Forstater made clear, that will be a fact-specific question to be determined in light of all the circumstances of the particular case.”

Relevant considerations

In Higgs v Farmor’s School [2023] Mrs Justice Eady sets out the considerations that are likely to be relevant considering whether constraining the expression of a belief (“manifestation”)  in order to avoid harassment or discrimination is justified in the context of employment. These include:

• the content of the manifestation
• the tone used
• the extent of the manifestation
• the worker’s understanding of the likely audience
• the extent and nature of the intrusion on the rights of others, and any consequential impact on the employer’s ability to run its business
• whether the worker has made clear that the views expressed are personal, or whether they might be seen as representing the views of the employer, and whether that might present a reputational risk
• whether there is a potential power imbalance given the nature of the worker’s position or role and that of those whose rights are intruded upon;
• the nature of the employer’s business, in particular where there is a potential impact on vulnerable service users or clients
• whether the limitation imposed is the least intrusive measure open to the employer.

Employers cannot force employees to believe that people can change sex, or prevent them expressing that lack of belief except in limited circumstances. So what should employers do to protect transgender people from harassment, and themselves from liability? 

They should have ordinary policies against bullying and harassment, including jokes, name-calling, humiliation, exclusion and singling people out for different treatment.

They should seek to avoid putting people in situations they will reasonably experience as hostile or humiliating.

Ambiguous rules put people in situations where it is reasonable to feel offended. For example, an employer provides “female” toilets, showers and changing rooms, but allows some male staff in because they identify as transgender. This creates a hostile environment: 

• female staff are surprised, shocked, humiliated and upset to find themselves sharing with a colleague of the opposite sex
• male staff members who want people to treat them as women may be challenged or face comments that are intended to intimidate, humiliate or degrade them.

This was the situation faced by the Sheffield Hospital Trust , which had a policy that transgender staff could use opposite-sex facilities. It had to deal with the fall-out when women complained about seeing a half-naked male in their changing room and the male staff member sued for harassment after being questioned about this.

Rather than putting these two groups of people together in a environment where both will reasonably feel harassed, employers should have clear rules about facilities that are single-sex, and also, where possible, provide a unisex alternative for anyone who needs it, including people who feel that they have “transitioned away from their sex” and therefore do not wish to use single-sex facilities shared with members of their own sex. The EHRC last year provided guidance on single-sex services which encouraged clear rules and policies.

It should be made clear to people who have the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment” that having this characteristic does not mean it is reasonable for them to expect others to believe or pretend to believe they have changed sex, or for them to be allowed to break (or expect to be an exception to) rules that aim to protect the dignity and privacy of others. 

If a person breaks a clear rule against entering a space provided for the opposite sex, it is not reasonable for them to feel offended when this is pointed out. 

No. It would not be lawful for schools to have a policy that forbids, punishes or denigrates pupils who use clear words about the sex of other people (such as pronouns, but also boy/girl, male/female and so on), nor to require pupils to refer to some classmates as if they were the opposite sex.

• To do so constrains the freedom of speech of pupils in a way that is unjustified and discriminates against them on the basis of belief. 
• It is inconsistent with schools’ safeguarding duty of care , and with their record-keeping responsibilities, for staff to misrepresent the sex of pupils in their records or in introducing them to their peers. 
• In order to explain and enforce sex-based rules designed to keep children safe (such as who is allowed in which showers, toilets, dormitories or sports teams), schools must be able to use clear and unequivocal language. 
• It is not reasonable to expect that a child at school, or transferring between schools, can avoid being “outed” as the sex that they are . 

We do not think that any policy which tells teachers or pupils to lie about the sex of pupils, constrains them from using clear sex-based language or treats them detrimentally if they do would pass the proportionality test. It is an unreasonable constraint on speech that is neither required nor justified in order to avoid discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment. 

Schools form part of a system that is regulated at a national level. In England that system is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Education. It is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to make this legal situation clear across the English school system by issuing the long-awaited DfE guidance. 

Do you have a question you’d like us to answer?

• Email this page

Mobile Menu Overlay

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500

FACT SHEET: Biden- ⁠ Harris Administration Advances Equality and Visibility for Transgender Americans

Today, the Biden-Harris Administration recognizes Transgender Day of Visibility, an annual celebration of the resilience, achievements, and joy of transgender people in the United States and around the world. Every American deserves the freedom to be themselves. But far too many transgender Americans still face systemic barriers, discrimination, and acts of violence. Today, the Administration once again condemns the proliferation of dangerous anti-transgender legislative attacks that have been introduced and passed in state legislatures around the country. The evidence is clear that these types of bills stigmatize and worsen the well-being and mental health of transgender kids, and they put loving and supportive families across the country at risk of discrimination and harassment. As the President has said, these bills are government overreach at its worst, they are un-American, and they must stop. Transgender people are some of the bravest people in our nation. But nobody should have to be brave just to be themselves. Today, the Biden Administration announced new actions to support the mental health of transgender children, remove barriers that transgender people face accessing critical government services, and improve the visibility of transgender people in our nation’s data.

Reinforcing federal protections for transgender kids. The Justice Department announced today that it has issued a letter to all state attorneys general reminding them of federal constitutional and statutory provisions that protect transgender youth against discrimination, including when those youth seek gender-affirming care. Advancing dignity, respect, and self-determination for transgender people by improving the traveler experience. For far too long, transgender, non-binary, and gender non-conforming Americans have faced significant barriers to travelling safely and many have not had their gender identity respected as they travel within the United States and around the world. To create a safer and more dignified travel experience, the Biden Administration is announcing the following changes.

• The Department of State is announcing that beginning on April 11, 2022, all U.S. citizens will be able select an “X” as their gender marker on their U.S. passport application. This is a major step in delivering on the President’s commitment to expand access to accurate identification documents for transgender and non-binary Americans. Information on how to apply will be available at travel.state.gov/gender .
• Implementing enhanced screening technology. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will soon begin updating its Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) body scanners with new technology that will increase security and efficiency by reducing false alarm rates and pat-downs for the traveling public. By replacing the current, gender-based system with this more accurate technology, TSA will improve the customer experience of transgender travelers who have previously been required to undergo additional screening due to alarms in sensitive areas.  This new technology will help to improve the experience of travelers, particularly those who are transgender and non-binary travelers. TSA will begin deploying this new technology in airports throughout the country later this year.
• Expanding airline partnerships to enhance the overall travel experience.  TSA is working closely with air carriers across the nation to promote the use and acceptance of the “X” gender marker to ensure more efficient and accurate passenger processing. As of March 31st, two major domestic air carriers already offer a third gender marker option in their travel-reservation systems, with a third air carrier planning to offer this option in the Fall of 2022.
• Streamlining identity validation. TSA has updated its Standard Operating Procedures to remove gender considerations when validating a traveler’s identification at airport security checkpoints. This ensures that TSOs can accurately and efficiently validate each traveler’s identity while avoiding unnecessary delays.
• Updating TSA PreCheck and CBP Trusted Traveler Programs enrollment to include “X” gender markers. The Department of Homeland Security is beginning the process of adding “X” gender markers options in Trusted Traveler programs and the TSA PreCheck program to enhance access for transgender, non-binary, and gender non-conforming travelers to these programs.

Providing resources for transgender kids and their families. Transgender children are put at higher risk of attempted suicide or mental health challenges when they face bullying, rejection, or denial of health care. The Biden Administration is releasing several new resources to help transgender children and their parents thrive:

• Providing mental health resources for transgender youth.  In recent months, multiple states have removed critical information about mental health resources for LGBTQI+ youth from official state websites. Transgender youth often face significant barriers in accessing supportive resources, and are at greater risk of attempted suicide. In response, the Department of Health and Human Services released a new website that offers resources for transgender and LGBTQI+ youth, their parents, and providers. These resources include best practices for affirming an LGBTQI+ child, and information about suicide prevention services.
• Expanding trainings to support transgender and nonbinary students in schools. The Office of Safe and Supportive Schools in the Department of Education will offer new training for schools with experts and school leaders who will discuss the challenges faced by many transgender and nonbinary students and strategies and actions for providing support.
• Confirming the positive impact of gender affirming care on youth mental health. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has posted LGBTQI+ Youth – Like All Americans, They Deserve Evidence-Based Care , in which Miriam Delphin-Rittmon, Ph.D., HHS Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use and the leader of SAMHSA, shares how to engage LGBTQI+ youth, the evidence behind the positive effects of gender affirming care, and available resources for LGBTQI+ youth, their families, providers, community organizations, and government agencies.
• Confirming that gender-affirming care is trauma-informed care. The National Child Traumatic Stress Network (NCTSN), which is administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, is releasing new information for providers confirming that providing gender-affirming care is neither child maltreatment nor malpractice.
• Providing resources on the importance of gender affirming care for children and adolescents. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health has developed a resource to inform parents and guardians, educators, and other persons supporting children and adolescents with information on what is gender-affirming care and why it is important to transgender, nonbinary, and other gender expansive young people’s well-being.

Improving access to federal services and benefits for transgender Americans.  With support and coordination from the U.S. Digital Service, federal agencies are removing barriers to access government services by improving the customer experience of transgender, non-binary, and gender non-conforming Americans:

• Accessing retirement savings. The Social Security Administration is announcing that it is removing the requirement that transgender people show proof of identity such as doctor’s notes in order to update their gender information in their social security record by the fall of 2022. This will significantly improve transgender individuals’ experience in accessing their retirement benefits, obtaining health care, and applying for jobs.
• Filing an employment discrimination complaint . The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is announcing that it will promote greater equity and inclusion for members of the transgender community by giving individuals the option to select an “X” gender marker during the voluntary self-identification questions that are part of the intake process for filing a charge of discrimination.
• Applying for federal student aid. The Department of Education plans to propose next month that the 2023-24 FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) will include an opportunity for applicants to indicate their gender identity as well as their race/ethnicity when applying for federal financial aid. The questions, which will be posted for public comment, will be in a survey that accompanies the application. This privacy-protected information would help to inform the Department about possible barriers students, including transgender and nonbinary students, face in the financial aid process.
• Visiting the White House.  The White House Office of Management and Administration is announcing that it is beginning the process of implementing updates that will improve the White House campus entry process for transgender, gender non-conforming, and non-binary visitors by adding an “X” gender marker option to the White House Worker and Visitor Entry System (WAVES) system. This change will ensure that transgender, non-binary, and gender nonconforming people can visit the People’s House in a manner that respects and affirms their gender identity.

Advancing inclusion and visibility in federal data. In too many critical federal surveys and data systems, transgender, non-binary, and gender non-conforming people are not fully reflected. To improve visibility for transgender Americans, agencies are announcing new actions to expand the collection and use of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data.

• The White House announced that the President’s proposed Fiscal Year 23 budget includes $10 million in funding for additional critical research on how to best add questions about sexual orientation and gender identity to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, one of our nation’s largest and most important surveys of American households. This data collection will help the federal government better serve the LGBTQI+ community by providing valuable information on their jobs, educational attainment, home ownership, and more.
• The Department of Health and Human Services has released the findings of the federal government’s first-ever user research testing conducted with transgender Americans on how they want to see themselves reflected on Federal IDs. This groundbreaking user research by the Collaborating Center for Question Design and Evaluation Research (CCQDER) at the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) directly informed the State Department’s adopted definition of the “X” gender marker.
• The Department of Health and Human Services  has released a comprehensive new consensus study on Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. This work, commissioned by the National Institutes of Health and carried out by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, will inform additional data collections and future research in how to best serve LGBTQI+ Americans.

These announcements build on the Biden-Harris Administration’s historic work to advance equality for transgender Americans since taking office, including: Combatting legislative attacks on transgender kids at the state level.

• Condemning anti-transgender bills. The President has consistently made clear that legislative attacks against transgender youth are un-American, and are bullying disguised as legislation. In his March, 2022 State of the Union Address, the President said, “The onslaught of state laws targeting transgender Americans and their families is wrong. As I said last year, especially to our younger transgender Americans, I will always have your back as your President, so you can be yourself and reach your God-given potential.” The White House has also hosted listening sessions with transgender youth and advocates in states across the country that are impacted by anti-transgender legislative attacks.
• Reaffirming that transgender children have the right to access gender-affirming health care. In March, following state actions that aim to target parents and doctors who provide gender-affirming care to transgender children with child abuse investigations, the Department of Health and Human Services took multiple actions to support transgender children in receiving the care they need and promised to use every tool available to protect LGTBQI+ children and support their families.
• Department of Justice statements of interest and amicus briefs. The Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division has filed Statements of Interest and amicus briefs in several matters to protect the constitutional rights of transgender individuals, including in Brandt v. Rutledge , a lawsuit challenging legislation restricting access to gender-affirming care for transgender youth; B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education , a lawsuit challenging legislation restricting participation of transgender students in school sports; Corbitt v. Taylor , a lawsuit challenging legislation restricting the ability to change gender markers on state driver’s licenses; and Adams v. School Board of St. John’s County , which involves the right of a transgender boy to use the boys’ restroom at his school.

Advancing civil rights protections for transgender Americans

• Fighting for passage of the Equality Act.  President Biden  continues to call  on the Senate to pass the Equality Act, legislation which will provide long overdue federal civil rights protections to transgender and LGBTQI+ Americans and their families. As the White House has  said , passing the Equality Act is key to addressing the epidemic levels of violence and discrimination that transgender people face. The Administration’s first Statement of Administration Policy was in support of the Equality Act, and the White House has convened national leaders to discuss the importance of the legislation.
• Signing one of the most comprehensive Executive Orders on LGBTQI+ rights in history.  Within hours of taking office, President Biden signed an  Executive Order  which established that it is the official policy of the Biden-Harris Administration to prevent and combat discrimination against LGBTQI+ individuals, and to fully enforce civil rights laws to prevent discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation. This Executive Order is one of the most consequential policies for LGBTQI+ Americans ever signed by a U.S. President. As a result of that Order, the Departments of Health and Human Services , Housing and Urban Development , Education , Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , and Justice have announced that they are expanding non-discrimination protections for transgender people in health care, housing, education, credit and lending services, and community safety programs.

Supporting transgender service members and veterans

• Reversing the discriminatory ban on transgender servicemembers.  In his first week in office, President Biden  signed  an Executive Order reversing the ban on openly transgender servicemembers serving in the Armed Forces, enabling all qualified Americans to serve their country in uniform. President Biden believes that an inclusive military strengthens our national security As a result of his Executive Order, the Department of Defense issued new  policies  which prohibit discrimination against transgender servicemembers, provide a path for transgender servicemembers to access gender-affirming medical care, and require that all transgender servicemembers are treated with dignity and respect.
• Supporting transgender veterans. To ensure that transgender veterans are treated with dignity and respect, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) launched an  agency-wide review  of its policies and practices to ensure that transgender veterans and employees do not face discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression. In June, VA also announced that it is beginning the regulatory process to remove restrictions that prevent transgender veterans from accessing the gender-affirming care they need and deserve.

Responding to the crisis of anti-transgender violence and advancing safety

• Establishing a White House-led interagency working group on anti-transgender violence. To address the crisis of anti-transgender stigma and violence, during Pride Month in 2021 the White House established the first Interagency Working Group on Safety, Opportunity, and Inclusion for Transgender and Gender Diverse Individuals. The Working Group is co-led by the White House Domestic Policy Council and Gender Policy Council. To inform the priorities of the Working Group, throughout the fall of 2021 the White House convened 15 historic listening sessions with transgender and gender diverse people, advocates, and civil rights leaders from across the country and around the world, including a White House roundtable with transgender women of color .
• Releasing a White House report uplifting the voices of transgender people on gender-based violence and discrimination. On Transgender Day of Remembrance, the White House released a  report  sharing the perspectives from White House listening sessions, uplifting the voices and advocacy of transgender people throughout the country, and highlighting over 45 key, early actions the Biden-Harris Administration is taking to address the root causes of anti-transgender violence, discrimination, and denial of economic opportunity.
• Department of Justice civil rights enforcement actions. On September 14, 2021, the Department of Justice announced that it was launching a statewide civil investigation into Georgia’s prisons, which includes a focus on sexual abuse of transgender prisoners by other prisoners and staff. The Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division and U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Puerto Rico also obtained a federal indictment charging three men with hate crimes for assaulting a transgender woman because of her gender identity.
• Ensuring non-discrimination protections in community safety programs. The Department of Justice issued a Memorandum from the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights regarding the application of Bostock v. Clayton County to the nondiscrimination provisions of the Safe Streets Act, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, the Victims of Crime Act, and the Violence Against Women Act to strengthen non-discrimination protections for transgender and LGBTQI+ individuals in key community safety programs.
• Strengthening protections for transgender individuals who are incarcerated. In January 2022 the Bureau of Prisons revised its manual on serving transgender offenders , improving access to gender-affirming care and access to facility placements that align with an inmate’s gender identity.
• Honoring those lost to violence.  The White House and the Second Gentleman of the United States hosted a first of its kind vigil in the Diplomatic Room of the White House to honor the lives of transgender and gender diverse people killed in 2021, and the countless transgender and gender diverse people who face brutal violence, harassment, and discrimination in the United States and around the world. The President also released a statement honoring the transgender people who lost their lives to violence.
• Advancing safety and justice for transgender and Two-Spirit Indigenous people. LGBTQI+ Native Americans and people who identify as transgender or “Two-Spirit” are often the targets of violent crimes. On November 15, 2021, President Biden signed an Executive Order on Improving Public Safety and Criminal Justice for Native Americans and Addressing the Crisis of Missing or Murdered Indigenous People. The Executive Order directs federal agencies to work hand in hand with Tribal Nations and Tribal partners to build safe and healthy Tribal communities to address the crisis of Missing and Murdered Indigenous People, including LGBTQI+ and “Two-Spirit” Native Americans.

Advancing health equity and expanding access to gender-affirming health care to support transgender patients

• Protecting transgender patients from health care discrimination. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that it would interpret and enforce section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act’s prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex in certain health programs to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.
• Advancing gender-affirming care as an essential health benefit.  In 2021, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) approved the first ever application from a state to add additional gender-affirming care benefits to a state’s essential health benefit benchmark plan.
• Advancing health equity research on gender-affirming care.  The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced that it will increase funding for research on gender-affirming procedures to further develop the evidence base for improved standards of care. Research priorities include a more thorough investigation and characterization of the short- and long-term outcomes on physical and mental health associated with gender-affirming care.
• Ending the HIV crisis among transgender and gender diverse communities.  In December, 2021, in recognition of World AIDS Day, the White House Office of National AIDS Policy released a revised National HIV/AIDS Strategy which now identifies transgender and gender diverse communities as a priority population in the federal government’s strategy to end the HIV epidemic.
• Advancing access to gender-affirming care through Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program. The Health Resources and Services Administration announced that it has released a letter encouraging Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program service providers to provide access to gender affirming care and treatment services to transgender and gender diverse individuals with HIV. The letter reaffirms the importance of providing culturally-affirming health care and social services as a key component to improving the lives of transgender people with HIV.
• Ensuring transgender patients can access birth control. In 2021 HHS issued a final rule to strengthen the Title X family planning program, fulfilling the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to restore access to equitable, affordable, client-centered, quality family planning services. The rule requires family planning projects to provide inclusive care to LGBTQI+ persons. Additionally, the rule prohibits discrimination against any client based on sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex characteristics, or marital status.

Supporting transgender students and their families

• Ensuring educational environments are free from sex discrimination and protecting LGBTQI+ students from sexual harassment.  President Biden signed an  Executive Order  recommitting the Federal Government to guarantee educational environments free from sex discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The Executive Order charged the Department of Education with reviewing the significant rates at which students who identify as LGBTQ+ are subject to sexual harassment, including sexual violence. The Department of Education has announced that it intends to propose amendments to its Title IX regulations this year.
• Protecting the rights of transgender and gender diverse students. The Department of Education has affirmed that federal civil rights laws protect all students, including transgender and other LGBTQI+ students, from discrimination. The Department published a notice in the Federal Register announcing that it interprets Title IX’s statutory prohibition on sex discrimination as encompassing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
• Department of Justice memorandum on Title IX. The Department of Justice issued a memorandum regarding the application of Bostock to Title IX.
• Speaking directly to transgender students. The Department of Justice, Department of Education, and Department of Health and Human Services issued a joint back to school message for transgender youth.
• Outreach and education to transgender and gender diverse students and their families. The Department of Education has published fact sheets and other resources showing the federal government’s support for transgender students, highlighting the ways schools can support students, reminding schools of their duty to investigate and address harassment based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and informing students how they can assert their rights and file complaints.
• Advancing research to address the harms of so-called conversion therapy.  The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) announced that it will update its 2015 publication  Ending Conversion Therapy: Supporting and Affirming LGBTQ Youth  to reflect the latest research and state of the field. 

Promoting fair housing and ending homelessness for transgender Americans

• Advancing fair housing protections on the basis of gender identity. In February 2021 the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced that it would administer and enforce the Fair Housing Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.
• Ensuring safety and access to services for transgender people experiencing homelessness. In April, HUD withdrew the previous administration’s proposed “Shelter Rule,” which would have allowed for federally funded discrimination against transgender people who seek shelter housing. By withdrawing the previous administration’s proposed rule, the agency has restored protections for transgender people to access shelter in line with their gender identity. HUD has also released new tools for recipients to ensure compliance with these requirements in shelters and other facility settings.

Advancing economic opportunity and protections for transgender workers

• Ensuring nondiscrimination protections for transgender and gender diverse workers. In November 2021, the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs proposed to rescind the agency’s 2020 rule “Implementing Legal Requirements Regarding the Equal Opportunity Clause’s Religious Exemption,” an important step toward protecting workers from discrimination while safeguarding principles of religious freedom.
• Ensuring equal access to the workforce development system. The Department of Labor is enforcing discrimination prohibitions in workforce development programs funded by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, protecting workers from discrimination based on their gender identity or transgender status.

Advancing gender equity and transgender equality at home and around the world

• Advancing transgender equality in U.S. foreign policy and foreign assistance. In line with the Presidential Memorandum on Advancing the Human Rights of LGBTQI+ Persons Around the World , the United States is making significant investments to uphold dignity, equality and respect for transgender persons globally.  For example, USAID supports the Global Barometer for Transgender Rights and the LGBT Global Acceptance Index which track progress and setbacks to protecting transgender lives around the world.  The Department of Health and Human Services through the United States President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief supports inclusive health care services for transgender individuals, enabling health clinics to provide care to the transgender community. And through the Department of State’s Global Equality Fund , local transgender rights organizations receive support to document human rights violations and provide critical legal assistance to community members.  
• Establishing the White House Gender Policy Council to Advance Gender Equity and Equality.  President Biden signed an  Executive Order  establishing the White House Gender Policy Council to advance gender equity and equality across the whole of the government, including by addressing barriers faced by LGBTQ+ people, in particular transgender women and girls, across our country.  

Supporting transgender leaders and public servants

• Making the Federal government a model employer for transgender public servants. President Biden signed an  Executive Order  which takes historic new steps to ensure the Federal government is a model employer for all employees – including transgender, gender non-conforming, and non-binary employees. The Executive Order charges agencies with building inclusive cultures for transgender employees by: expanding the availability of gender-neutral facilities in Federal buildings; ensuring that employee services support transgender employees who wish to legally, medically or socially transition; advancing the use of non-binary gender markers and pronouns in Federal employment processes; and expanding access to gender-affirming care and inclusive health benefits.
• Appointing historic transgender leaders. The Biden-Harris Administration includes barrier-breaking LGBTQI+ leaders, including Assistant Secretary for Health Dr. Rachel Levine, who is the first openly transgender person ever confirmed by the U.S. Senate. In October, she was also named a four-star admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, becoming the first openly transgender person to hold that rank in any of the country’s uniformed services. Over 14 percent of Biden-Harris Administration appointees identify as LGBTQI+.

Advancing visibility for transgender Americans

• Issuing the First White House Proclamation for Transgender Day of Visibility.  On March 31, 2021 President Biden became the first U.S. President to issue a  proclamation  commemorating Transgender Day of Visibility.  
• Hosting a White House Virtual Convening on Transgender Equality.  In June, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki hosted a first-of-its-kind  national conversation  on equality for transgender, gender non-conforming, and non-binary Americans.
• Releasing a toolkit on equality and inclusion for transgender Americans.  The White House released a new  toolkit  with best practices for advancing inclusion, opportunity, and safety for transgender Americans.
• Establishing a National Pulse Memorial. On June 25, 2021, President Biden signed H.R. 49 into law to designate the National Pulse Memorial. As the President acknowledged in his statement on the fifth anniversary of the Pulse nightclub shooting, we must acknowledge gun violence’s particular impact on LGBTQ+ communities across our nation, and we must drive out hate and inequities that contribute to the epidemic of violence and murder against transgender women – especially transgender women of color. As the President has said, Pulse Nightclub is hallowed ground.

Stay Connected

We'll be in touch with the latest information on how President Biden and his administration are working for the American people, as well as ways you can get involved and help our country build back better.

Opt in to send and receive text messages from President Biden.

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

• Society and culture
• Equality, rights and citizenship

Equality Act 2010: guidance

Information and guidance on the Equality Act 2010, including age discrimination and public sector Equality Duty.

The Equality Act 2010 legally protects people from discrimination in the workplace and in wider society.

It replaced previous anti-discrimination laws with a single Act, making the law easier to understand and strengthening protection in some situations. It sets out the different ways in which it’s unlawful to treat someone.

Find out more about who is protected from discrimination, the types of discrimination under the law and what action you can take if you feel you’ve been unfairly discriminated against.

Discrimination: making a complaint

Before the Act came into force there were several pieces of legislation to cover discrimination, including:

• Sex Discrimination Act 1975
• Race Relations Act 1976
• Disability Discrimination Act 1995

If you wish to complain about possible unlawful treatment there are 2 separate processes, depending on when it happened.

Complaints: before October 2010

If you were subjected to unlawful treatment (eg discrimination, harassment or victimisation) before 1 October 2010, the Equality Act won’t apply. Instead, you’ll be covered by the legislation that was in force at the time.

For example, if you experienced race discrimination on 30 September 2010 and want to make a complaint or bring legal proceedings, the Race Relations Act 1976 will apply, not the Equality Act.

This is also true of any legal proceedings. They will go ahead according to the legislation under which they were brought, even if they may have continued after 1 October 2010.

• Questionnaires and guidance booklets for complaints under previous legislation

Complaints: after October 2010

If you were subject to unlawful treatment on or after 1 October 2010, the Equality Act applies.

For example, if you experienced sex discrimination on 30 September 2010, which continued until 2 October 2010, the Equality Act will apply, not the Sex Discrimination Act.

Find out more about how to complain about unlawful treatment in the Discrimination: your rights guide.

Equality Act provisions: commencement dates

To allow people and organisations enough time to prepare for the new laws, the provisions of the Act were brought in at different times (known as commencement dates).

October 2010

Equality Act provisions which came into force on 1 October 2010:

• the basic framework of protection against direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation in services and public functions, premi, work, education, associations and transport
• changing the definition of gender reassignment, by removing the requirement for medical supervision
• providing protection for people discriminated against because they are perceived to have, or are associated with someone who has, a protected characteristic
• clearer protection for breastfeeding mothers
• applying a uniform definition of indirect discrimination to all protected characteristics
• harmonising provisions allowing voluntary positive action

Provisions relating to disability

• extending protection against indirect discrimination to disability
• introducing the concept of “discrimination arising from disability” to replace protection under previous legislation lost as a result of a legal judgment
• applying the detriment model to victimisation protection (aligning with the approach in employment law)
• harmonising the thresholds for the duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people
• extending protection against harassment of employees by third parties to all protected characteristics
• making it more difficult for disabled people to be unfairly screened out when applying for jobs, by restricting the circumstances in which employers can ask job applicants questions about disability or health

Provisions relating to work

• allowing claims for direct gender pay discrimination where there is no actual comparator
• making pay secrecy clauses unenforceable
• extending protection in private clubs to sex, religion or belief, pregnancy and maternity, and gender reassignment
• introducing new powers for employment tribunals to make recommendations which benefit the wider workforce

Equality Act provisions which came into force in April 2011:

• positive action - recruitment and promotion
• public sector Equality Duty (see section below)

Ministers are considering how to implement the remaining provisions in the best way for business and for others with rights and responsibilities under the act. Their decisions will be announced in due course.

Equality Act Provisions that the government has decided not to take forward:

• public sector duty regarding socio-economic inequalities
• combined discrimination - dual characteristics

Age discrimination

The Equality Act 2010 includes provisions that ban age discrimination against adults in the provision of services and public functions. The ban came into force on 1 October 2012 and it is now unlawful to discriminate on the basis of age unless:

• the practice is covered by an exception from the ban
• good reason can be shown for the differential treatment (‘objective justification’)

The ban on age discrimination is designed to ensure that the new law prohibits only harmful treatment that results in genuinely unfair discrimination because of age. It does not outlaw the many instances of different treatment that are justifiable or beneficial.

You can read the original consultation on the archived Government Equalities Office website.

There is an overview of how the ban works and tailored guides for small businesses, private clubs and the holiday sector in the Equality Act guidance.

Age discrimination: exceptions

The government response to the consultation includes the draft Exceptions Order. You can also read the impact assessment .

Exceptions under the Order are:

• age-based concessions
• age-related holidays
• age verification
• clubs and associations concessions
• financial services
• immigration
• residential park homes

These specific exceptions are in addition to:

• general exceptions already allowed by the Act
• positive action measures
• ‘objective justification’

There are no specific exceptions to the ban on age discrimination for health or social care services. This means that any age-based practices by the NHS and social care organisations need to be objectively justified, if challenged.

Public sector Equality Duty

The public sector Equality Duty came into force across Great Britain on 5 April 2011. It means that public bodies have to consider all individuals when carrying out their day-to-day work – in shaping policy, in delivering services and in relation to their own employees.

It also requires that public bodies have due regard to the need to:

• eliminate discrimination
• advance equality of opportunity
• foster good relations between different people when carrying out their activities

Who the Equality Duty applies to

The Equality Duty applies across Great Britain to the public bodies listed in Schedule 19 (as amended) , and to any other organisation when it is carrying out a public function.

Specific duties

The Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) Regulations 2011 came into force on 10 September 2011.

The specific duties require public bodies to publish relevant, proportionate information showing compliance with the Equality Duty, and to set equality objectives.

Guidance for public bodies

The Government Equalities Office has published 2 quick-start guides to help public bodies understand the Equality Duty and the specific duties:

• Quick start guide: public sector Equality Duty
• Quick start guide: Specific duties

The Equality and Human Rights Commission is the statutory body established to help eliminate discrimination and reduce inequality. The Commission has published new non-statutory guidance on:

• The essential guide to the public sector Equality Duty
• Meeting the Equality Duty in policy and decision-making
• Engagement and the Equality Duty
• Equality objectives and the Equality Duty
• Equality information and the Equality Duty
• Technical guidance on the public sector Equality Duty - England

Section 153 of the act enables the Welsh and Scottish ministers to impose specific duties on certain Welsh and Scottish public bodies through secondary legislation. For Welsh and cross-border Welsh public bodies, specific duties have been finalised by the Welsh Assembly government and came into force on 6 April 2011.

The Equality Act 2010 (Statutory Duties) (Wales) Regulations 2011

For Scottish public bodies, the Scottish government launched a consultation on revised draft Regulations for specific duties on 9 September 2011. The consultation closed on 25 November 2011.

More information from the Scottish Government

Guidance on the Equality Duty specific to Wales and Scotland is available from the Equality and Human Rights Commission .

Equalities Act 2010: legislation

Equality Act 2010 on the legislation.gov.uk website

Explanatory notes on the legislation.gov.uk website

Legislation repealed or revoked by the Equality Act

A list of all legislation that was repealed or revoked on 1 October 2010 is available in Schedule 27 to the act.

Equality Act Statutory Instruments

Statutory Instruments made under the act are available:

• all UK Statutory Instruments related to the Equality Act on the legislation.gov.uk website
• all Welsh Statutory Instruments related to the Equality Act on the legislation.gov.uk website
• all Scottish Statutory Instruments related to the Equality Act on the legislation.gov.uk website

Guidance on the Equality Act

We have produced a series of guides outlining the key changes in the law made by the act .

To sign up to receive email updates of the work of the Government Equalities Office please contact [email protected] .

Removed links to set of forms and guidance which are no longer in use.

First published.

Related content

Is this page useful.

• Yes this page is useful
• No this page is not useful

Help us improve GOV.UK

Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.

To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. We’ll send you a link to a feedback form. It will take only 2 minutes to fill in. Don’t worry we won’t send you spam or share your email address with anyone.

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

• Undergraduate courses
• Events and open days
• Fees and finance
• Postgraduate courses
• How to apply
• Postgraduate events
• Fees and funding
• International students
• Continuing education
• Executive and professional education
• Courses in education
• How the University and Colleges work
• Term dates and calendars
• Visiting the University
• Annual reports
• Equality and diversity
• A global university
• Public engagement
• Give to Cambridge
• For Cambridge students
• For our researchers
• Business and enterprise
• Colleges & departments
• Email & phone search
• Museums & collections
• ED&I at Cambridge
• Public Equality Duties & Protected Characteristics
• Gender Reassignment
• Guidance on Gender Reassignment for Staff

Equality, Diversity & Inclusion

• Equality Reports
• ED&I at Cambridge overview
• College Equality Policies
• Combined Equality Scheme
• Equality Impact Assessments
• Equal Opportunities Policy
• Equality, Diversity & Inclusion Committee
• Gender Equality Steering Group ( GESG )
• Public Equality Duties & Protected Characteristics overview
• Gender Reassignment overview
• Guidance on Gender Reassignment for Staff overview

What is gender reassignment

• Protections in law
• Medical or surgical procedures
• Supporting Staff
• Information records and privacy
• Access to facilities
• Bullying and harassment
• Sources of information and guidance
• Transition support checklist
• Marriage and Civil Partnership
• Pregnancy and Maternity
• Religion or Belief
• Sexual Orientation overview
• Research Resources
• Local Support Groups
• Resources for Managers
• LGB&T Glossary
• Direct Discrimination
• Indirect Discrimination
• Racial harassment
• Victimisation
• Perceptive Discrimination
• Associative Discrimination
• Third-Party Harassment
• Positive Action
• Initiatives overview
• Academic Career Pathways CV Scheme
• Being LGBTQ+ in Cambridge: A review of the experiences and support of staff at the University of Cambridge
• Faith and Belief in Practice overview
• Facilities for Reflection or Prayer
• Guidance on Religion or Belief for Staff 2013
• College Chaplaincies
• Overview of Buddhism
• Overview of Christianity
• Overview of Hinduism
• Overview of Islam
• Overview of Judaism
• Overview of Sikhism
• Directory of Faith and Belief Communities in Cambridge overview
• Church of England
• United Reformed Church and Church of Scotland
• Festival of Wellbeing
• George Bridgetower Essay Prize
• Returning Carers Fund
• Supporting Parents and Carers @ Cambridge
• The Meaning of Success
• University Diversity Fund
• UDF Successful Projects
• WiSETI overview
• Cake and Careers
• WiSETI Activities overview
• WiSETI/Schlumberger Annual Lectures overview
• Past Lectures
• Events overview
• Recorded Events
• Equality Charters overview
• Athena Swan at Cambridge
• Race Equality Charter
• Training overview
• Equality & Diversity Online Training
• Understanding Unconscious / Implicit Bias
• Networks overview
• Disabled Staff Network
• LGBTQ+ Network overview
• Advice and Support
• Promoting Respect and Dignity
• Resources & Links
• Staff Development and Benefits
• REN: Race Equality Network
• Supporting Parents and Carers @ Cambridge Network
• Women's Staff Network overview
• Support, Information and Local Women's Organisations
• Personal Development
• Advice, Help and Support
• Release Time for Staff Diversity Networks overview
• Information for staff members
• For Managers
• Resources overview
• Race Equality Week 2024 : 5th - 11th February
• COVID - Inclusion Resources
• Equality, Diversity & Inclusion
• ED&I at Cambridge
• Public Equality Duties & Protected Characteristics

A decision to undertake gender reassignment is made when an individual feels that his or her gender at birth does not match their gender identity. This is called ‘gender dysphoria’ and is a recognised medical condition.

Gender reassignment refers to individuals, whether staff, who either:

• Have undergone, intend to undergo or are currently undergoing gender reassignment (medical and surgical treatment to alter the body).
• Do not intend to undergo medical treatment but wish to live permanently in a different gender from their gender at birth.

‘Transition’ refers to the process and/or the period of time during which gender reassignment occurs (with or without medical intervention).

Not all people who undertake gender reassignment decide to undergo medical or surgical treatment to alter the body. However, some do and this process may take several years. Additionally, there is a process by which a person can obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate , which changes their legal gender.

People who have undertaken gender reassignment are sometimes referred to as Transgender or Trans (see glossary ).

Transgender and sexual orientation

It should be noted that sexual orientation and transgender are not inter-related. It is incorrect to assume that someone who undertakes gender reassignment is lesbian or gay or that his or her sexual orientation will change after gender reassignment. However, historically the campaigns advocating equality for both transgender and lesbian, gay and bisexual communities have often been associated with each other. As a result, the University's staff and student support networks have established diversity networks that include both Sexual Orientation and Transgender groups.

• 16 May "Getting to Diversity": A Talk About What Works and What Doesn't Work

View all events

© 2024 University of Cambridge

• Contact the University
• Accessibility
• Freedom of information
• Privacy policy and cookies
• Statement on Modern Slavery
• Terms and conditions
• University A-Z
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• Research news
• About research at Cambridge
• Spotlight on...

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

'Shifting sands': six legal views on the transgender debate

Lawyers examine possible consequences of the proposed reforms to the Gender Recognition Act

A year ago, Theresa May announced that the government was seeking to “streamline and demedicalise” the process of changing gender in the UK because “being trans is not an illness”.

In July this year the government opened a public consultation on proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 that would allow people to “self-ID”, meaning that a person seeking to legally change their gender would no longer have to undergo a long legal and medical process. The consultation closes on Friday.

Here, seven lawyers examine the possible consequences to the proposed changes.

Julian Norman: ‘ Shifting legal sands are poor foundation for change’

The background to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA) was the case of Christine Goodwin , a trans woman, who took the UK government to the European Court of Human Rights. She argued that the government’s failure to recognise her in law as a woman breached article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which covers respect for one’s private and family life.

The court upheld the complaint, pointing out that there was no threat of “overturning the entire system” given that there were estimated to be only 2,000-5,000 transsexuals in the UK, and that although there would be legal repercussions these were not insurmountable “if confined to the case of fully achieved and post-operative transsexuals”.

The government responded by introducing the GRA. To acquire a gender recognition certificate (GRC) an applicant must provide evidence of a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, a condition of feeling one’s gender identity to be opposite to that assigned at birth. There are, therefore, two ways to be a man or woman in law: biologically by birth or legally by acquisition of a GRC.

Six years after the GRA came the Equality Act 2010, which introduced exemptions to protect single-sex services. However, it is unclear whether the exemptions apply to those who have become legally male or female through acquisition of a GRC. The website of the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission stated until last Friday that it would be unlawful to exclude from female-only services someone who was legally but not biologically female. It is now unhelpfully ambiguous .

These shifting legal sands are a poor foundation for change, and the definition of transgender has expanded hugely since 2004. Stonewall’s definition describes it as anybody whose innate sense of their own gender does not correlate to the culturally determined expressions associated with their sex at birth, whether or not they intend to make permanent physical changes.

The proposals upon which the government is consulting therefore envisage that a GRC, and thereby the protected characteristic of sex, should be granted through statutory declaration to a vastly wider group than was contemplated by the original legislation, including to those who are not transsexual.

Some type of reform is clearly needed. The law must protect anyone who is within the widening transgender spectrum – from gender non-conforming at one end to transsexual at the other, and encompassing non-binary and gender-fluid identities. Everyone on that spectrum must have proper protection from victimisation, and their access to education, employment, healthcare, housing and so on must be unimpeded.

At the same time, service providers must be the ones to choose whether to provide single-sex or single-gender services, and funding must be ringfenced for a certain number to be single sex, balancing the needs of both demographics without placing them in conflict.

To alleviate the growing concerns over sexual predators identifying as women, those who have committed specified crimes of male violence against women should be barred from acquiring a new birth certificate during the rehabilitation period specified in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

Fundamentally, any change to the law must be workable and coherent, its aims clearly delineated and its implementation accessible. The current interplay between the GRA and Equality Act does not meet that description. Neither service providers nor trans people should have to navigate a legal landscape littered with obstacles. Reform must provide clarity and not further ambiguity.

Julian Norman is a barrister at Drystone Chambers and the chair of FiLiA, a women’s rights charity

Prof Alex Sharpe: ‘ Parliament cannot have intended such absurdity’

Reforms making it easier for trans people to have their gender identities legally recognised will have no impact on existing rights of service providers to exclude trans women from women-only spaces. Under the Equality Act, all trans people covered by the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment” are protected against discrimination, subject only to specific sex-based exceptions that permit discrimination in the context of women-only spaces where it is “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”. The government has made clear it does not intend to change these Equality Act provisions.

Those opposing reform of the GRA argue that trans women holding a gender recognition certificate, and who bring a discrimination claim on the basis of gender reassignment, are not covered by the exceptions relating to this protected characteristic because they are, by virtue of the GRA, legally female. Therefore, they argue, expanding the number of people capable of acquiring a GRC will necessarily reduce, if not extinguish, occasions where the sex-based exceptions might be invoked.

The legal correctness of this argument is dubious. Furthermore, if it is correct, it has next to no practical significance because the exceptions are more or less unenforceable outside the prison context, where provision already exists to exclude (cis and trans) women from the female estate where their security profile renders them a danger to other inmates . This is because circumstances where a court might be satisfied exclusion from women-only spaces meets a threshold of proportionality and legitimacy is vanishingly small.

If parliament intended to remove GRC holders from the scope of permitted discrimination, it could have drafted the Equality Act accordingly and in clear terms. Yet there is nothing in the act, its explanatory notes or the parliamentary debates preceding its enactment to suggest the exceptions do not apply to GRC holders. Trans people covered by the protected characteristic of gender reassignment enjoy a set of benefits and detriments under the act. There is no reason to think GRC holders were intended to bear a different relationship to other trans people in the context of this balancing of rights.

Opponents of reform claim that under the Equality Act trans women who do not hold a GRC should legally be considered male when pursuing a discrimination claim. If this is legally correct, which I dispute here , the effect would be to doom practically all trans women’s discrimination claims to failure. Yet they also claim the exceptions do not apply to trans women with a GRC because they are sex-based. If both these claims are correct, the Equality Act exceptions excluding trans women from women-only spaces would be rendered meaningless, as they would apply to no one. Parliament cannot have intended such absurdity.

Finally, the GRA, while stating that a GRC recognises a successful applicant’s gender identity “for all legal purposes”, qualifies the scope of this recognition. Crucially, it does so not only in relation to matters of competitive sport and parental status in the context of existing children, but because recognition is subject to “any other enactment or any subordinate legislation”. In other words, if there is conflict between the GRA and subsequent legislation, as opponents of reform contend, the Equality Act trumps the GRA to the extent of conflict.

Alex Sharpe is a law professor at Keele University and a barrister at Garden Court Chambers in London

Rosa Freedman and Rosemary Auchmuty: ‘ Reforms must take into account the needs of all people affected’

Sex and gender are different, and the law treats them as categories distinct from one another. Sex is a protected characteristic in law, whereas gender identity currently is not. Although trans advocates conflate sex and gender or use them interchangeably, we insist that only by maintaining them as separate categories will we be able to reconcile the concerns of both those who identify as transgender and those who are women as defined and protected by the Equality Act.

Self-identification would remove the pathologisation of transgender – in line with the World Health Organization view – and the long, demoralising process of obtaining a GRC. Our proposal is that the self-identification process should be a sworn affidavit in which a person declares whether they identify their gender as male, female or non-binary, with the affidavit leading to a certificate explaining why your gender is different to the sex on your birth certificate. Such a process would be similar to naturalisation.

It should meet the concerns of all transgender individuals including the sizeable and growing group of people who do not want to be labelled as either gender, by creating an X gender as they have done in the Netherlands.

The effect of this process would be to allow people to choose what gender they are legally recognised as, while also maintaining sex as a separate category protected by law. That would ensure the protection of (biological) women’s rights in relation to sex-segregated spaces and services, as protected by the Equality Act where necessary and proportionate. We set out some areas where it is crucial to maintain sex-segregation, many of which already exist as exemptions in the Equalities Act, but where a conflation of gender identity and biological sex is already undermining their existence in reality.

Medical treatment and research is concerned with biology, and there are some treatments that are sex-specific. Sex-segregated spaces would also remain where women need protection from male bodies, such as in prisons, refuges and rape crisis centres, regardless of a person’s gender identity.

Statistics gathered would ask about both sex and gender, enabling the data to continue to be useful for the purposes of planning and understanding populations and demographics. To enable women to continue to participate in competitive sports, sex-segregation would be maintained. Protections would continue for religion, a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, taking into account the needs of religious people to have sex-segregated spaces.

Maintaining the legal distinction between gender identity and sex will also ensure that women-only spaces – women’s centres, the Girl Guides, ladies’ swimming ponds – that were set up to compensate for women’s longstanding political, social and economic disadvantage are sex-segregated. Those spaces also include women-only shortlists, schemes to boost women’s representation on company boards and as directors, and woman of the year awards in business and Stem (science, technology engineering and maths) sectors overwhelmingly dominated by men.

Reforms to the process of obtaining legal recognition must take into account the needs of all people affected and ensure that rights are protected for all concerned. We propose that maintaining the distinction between sex and gender in law will allow for self-identification while also protecting women’s rights.

Professor Rosa Freedman is Global Development Division director at the University of Reading’s School of Law. Rosemary Auchmuty is a professor at the University of Reading’s School of Law, specialising in gender, sexuality, property law, and legal history

Stephen Whittle: ‘ Gender recognition only provides a limited legal recognition’

Currently, UK law only allows trans people with a prior diagnosis of gender dysphoria to legally change their gender. This puts the GRA at odds with the World Health Organization, which no longer classifies gender dysphoria as a mental illness, reflecting that trans people’s understanding of their own gender identities are sound and, accordingly, should be respected as valid.

However, some feminists claim a proposal to reform the GRA to let people change their legal gender by self-declaration will allow “male-bodied people” access to refuges for abused women. They argue that making it easier for trans people to change their gender on their birth certificate, or as they put it “on demand … with no … changes to his body”, is “dangerous and irrational” and will put “women, girls and the future of female-only services at risk”.

Some women’s groups claim their beef is not with trans people but with men who will obtain a new birth certificate so as to gain entry into women’s spaces. Others argue this is about trans women, as it will allow them to retain their penis while gaining legal entry into women’s spaces. Another group argue that trans women can never become women, they are always (dangerous) men.

These arguments are entirely unfounded. Gender recognition only provides a limited legal recognition of a person’s acquired gender, primarily for medical privacy, marriage and pension access.

Ireland, Argentina, Belgium, California, Columbia, Portugal, Denmark, Norway and Malta all allow self-determination for legal gender recognition. As yet unpublished research by the trans rights group Press for Change, for the gender recognition consultation, shows that in these countries there has not been the feminist backlash to this legal change that we have seen here in the UK. The difference appears to be that in the UK we have the Equality Act providing employment protection and access to gender reassignment treatment on the NHS.

Women fear the impact of any change of the GRA on single-sex services. The Equality Act does, however, provide single-sex services with the ability to exclude trans people if that is a legitimate and proportionate response to the service needs. This is a fair balance that has worked well and it will not change, even if the Gender Recognition Act 2004 is modernised.

Stephen Whittle is professor of equalities law at Manchester Law School and a founder of the trans campaign group Press for Change

Maureen O’Hara: ‘ Wishful thinking is not a good foundation for law’

Enabling individuals to change their gender in law by a process of self-declaration would have profound implications for the safeguarding of children, women and vulnerable adults. This is not because transgender people as such represent a safeguarding threat. It is because empirical evidence shows that the overwhelming majority of sex offenders are male, and that persistent sex offenders are often skilled manipulators who go to great lengths to gain access to those they wish to abuse. One way they can do this is by claiming to identify as women, either to gain access to single-sex spaces or to take up roles which are normally reserved to women for safeguarding reasons.

In their submissions to the parliamentary inquiry into transgender equality both the British Association of Gender Identity Specialists and the British Psychological Society stated that some male sex offenders claim to identify as women as a means of making it easier to commit sexual offences against women and children. The British Psychological Society warned of the need to be “extremely cautious of setting law and policy such that some of the most dangerous people in society have greater latitude”.

Ministry of Justice figures suggest there are 60 sex offenders among an estimated 125 known transgender offenders in the prison estate in England and Wales. Of these 60, 29 have convictions for sexual offences relating to children. These figures do not include the number of transgender prisoners who have not made the authorities aware of their gender status.

Assessment of risk is at the heart of good preventative safeguarding practice. Under the present GRA, gender reassignment requires a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria. However, self-declaration would remove all assessment and gatekeeping mechanisms from the reassignment process.

The Equality Act 2010 creates exemptions under which it is possible to exclude people who have undergone gender reassignment from single-sex spaces. The government has stated its intention to maintain these exemptions. However, the operation of the Equality Act and the GRA are interdependent, and the effectiveness of the exemptions will in practice depend on the clarity with which any reforms to the GRA distinguish between biological sex and gender.

The current use of de facto self-declaration by some organisation makes some of the harmful effects of introducing it into law already foreseeable. The Prison Service is housing transgender sex offenders in female prisons, many of whom do not have a GRC and are therefore legally male. One example is Karen White, formerly known as Stephen Wood, who was recently convicted of sexually assaulting two women while on remand at HMP New Hall.

Girl Guides now accept biological males who self-identify as women as guide leaders. If self-declaration is introduced without safeguards, all organisations working with children could be required to adopt similar policies. We know that child sexual abusers seek out positions that allow them greater access to children.

It is wishful thinking to assume that some would not complete a statutory declaration form to change their legal gender if they believed this would make it easier to reach children they wish to abuse. Wishful thinking is not a good foundation for law.

Maureen O’Hara is a solicitor and a senior law lecturer at Coventry University

Peter Dunne: ‘ The legal invisibility of transgender youth is deeply problematic’

The GRA currently excludes transgender minors. The legislation states that only “[a] person of either gender who is aged at least 18” can apply for a GRC. In its recent consultation, the government has not proposed to extend legal recognition to children and young adults.

The legal invisibility of transgender youth is deeply problematic, particularly for those many young people who, prior to becoming legal adults, begin a process of social and medical transition to their preferred gender. These individuals find themselves in a somewhat contradictory position whereby, although public sector bodies such as the NHS are facilitating the public expression of their preferred gender, UK law refuses to legitimise their gender identity. This increases the risk that children and adolescents will have their transgender history involuntarily revealed, and that they will be exposed to transphobic abuse.

The absolute exclusion of minors from the GRA contradicts the welfare of transgender children. It is inconsistent with recent recommendations from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which advocate respect for gender identity, and it fails, as proposed by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe , to ensure “that the best interests of the child are a primary consideration”. The best interests of transgender children are not served by refusing to acknowledge the reality of their lives. On the contrary, there is a growing body of health and social science research which shows that rather than creating harm, affirming transgender children leads to better mental health outcomes.

A majority of European countries that have recently revised their gender recognition laws, including Ireland, Belgium, Malta, Norway and the Netherlands, have expressly included transgender minors. These countries have not adopted a uniform legal model, with many restricting gender recognition to adolescents. However, what is clear is that the UK’s position of continuing to exclude all persons under 18 years from the GRA is now out of step with best practice in Europe.

Consistent with the recent recommendations of the House of Commons transgender inquiry, parliament should amend the GRA to include all individuals over the age of 16 years. Like their adult peers, transgender youth of 16 and above should be able to obtain a GRC through a process of self-declaration of their preferred gender. At the same time, parliament should also make appropriate provision for younger transgender individuals for whom access to gender recognition, through parental consent or Gillick competence would best promote their welfare. Parliament should also ensure that where young persons do not yet feel ready to legally transition, there are sufficient safeguards to allow them to explore their gender identity in a safe, respectful environment.

Peter Dunne is a law lecturer at the University of Bristol

• Transgender
• Equality Act 2010

Most viewed

Check if you've experienced discrimination

This advice applies to England. See advice for See advice for Northern Ireland , See advice for Scotland , See advice for Wales

If you’ve been treated unfairly or harassed, might have experienced ‘unlawful discrimination’ - this means the discrimination is against the law.

If you want to take action about discrimination, you need to check if what happened is covered by the Equality Act 2010. This is the law that stops employers, businesses and service providers discriminating against you.

There are 3 things you need to check:

You were discriminated against because of something about you like your age or race - these things are called ‘protected characteristics’

The person or organisation that treated you unfairly has a duty not to discriminate against you

What happened meets the definition of a type of discrimination described in the Equality Act

If you work out that you haven’t experienced discrimination under the Equality Act, you might still be able to take action using different laws.

1. Check if it was because of a protected characteristic

It’s unlawful to discriminate against you because of one or more of the 9 protected characteristics.

If you weren’t discriminated against because of a protected characteristic, it’s not discrimination under the Equality Act.

The 9 protected characteristics are:

You must not usually be discriminated against because of:

how old you are 

an age group you’re in - for example young people, millennials or over-60s 

However, sometimes businesses and service providers are allowed to treat you differently because of your age. For example, banks are allowed to set age limits on mortgage lending.

You can check when businesses or services can discriminate against you because of your age .

If you are disabled or have a long-term health condition, you’re protected from discrimination if your impairment meets the Equality Act’s definition of disability.

The Equality Act says you’re disabled if:

you have a physical or mental impairment

the impairment has a substantial and long-term effect on your everyday activities

If you want to make a disability discrimination claim, you’ll need to show your impairment meets the Equality Act’s definition of disability.

Some conditions are automatically treated as a disability under the Equality Act, including cancer and HIV.

Check how to  show you’re disabled under the Equality Act .

Gender reassignment - this means if you're transgender

If you’re transgender, you have the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’.

Gender reassignment means you:

are planning to transition from the sex you were assigned at birth to a different sex

are in the process of transitioning 

have already transitioned

Transitioning could include things like changing your name, pronouns or the way you dress - you don’t need to have had medical treatment.

The Equality Act is from 2010 and it doesn’t reflect the language lots of people use to describe their gender or their transition.

If you’re non-binary

The Equality Act says you only have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if you’re transitioning from one sex to another. It doesn’t mention non-binary people. 

In 2020, a non-binary person successfully argued they had the protected characteristic of gender reassignment at an employment tribunal. 

The judge at the tribunal said the characteristic should include people transitioning away from their assigned sex - even if they aren’t going to transition to a different sex.

Other courts don’t have to follow this decision. This means if you take legal action about discrimination, the judge might decide you don’t have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

If you want to make a complaint or legal claim about discrimination, it’s still worth referencing this case. 

The name of the case is Ms R Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover Ltd. You can read the full employment tribunal decision on GOV.UK . The judge’s decision about non-binary people is in paragraph 178 of the 'Reasons' document.

Marriage and civil partnership

Your employer must not discriminate against you because you’re married or in a civil partnership.

Work is the only place you’re protected from discrimination because of marriage or civil partnership.

If you’ve separated from your partner, you’re still protected until you legally end your marriage or civil partnership.

If you’re not married or in a civil partnership, you don’t have this protected characteristic - for example, if you’re in an unmarried relationship or you’re divorced.

Since Nisha got married, her manager has stopped giving her weekend shifts and won’t let her do overtime. Her manager said other members of staff need the extra shifts more and her husband should be supporting her financially. This is discrimination because of marriage.

Pregnancy and maternity

You’re protected from maternity and pregnancy discrimination while you’re pregnant. The protection starts as soon as your pregnancy begins.

At work, your protection ends either:

when your maternity leave ends - if you’re entitled to it

2 weeks after your baby is born - if you’re not entitled to maternity leave

Your employer also can’t discriminate against you because you’re planning to take maternity leave, or because you took it in the past. Check your rights while you’re on maternity leave .

Outside of work, your protection ends 26 weeks after your baby is born.

After the protected period ends

If you experience discrimination after you stop being protected from pregnancy discrimination, you might be able to claim sex discrimination.

You must not be discriminated against because of your race. 

The Equality Act says race includes your:

nationality

ethnic or national origins

It can also include other things related to race - like how you talk, the clothes you wear or your hairstyle.

Nationality

Your nationality is the country where you have citizenship. You might be a citizen of more than one country - for example, you could have British and Armenian dual citizenship. 

Ethnic and national origins

Ethnic and national origins can include lots of different things like:

the country or region where you were born or grew up

where your parents or other family members came from

the ethnic group you belong to - for example, if you’re Caribbean, Jewish or Irish Traveller

It’s still race discrimination even if the discrimination isn’t about your actual ethnic or national origins. For example, it’s race discrimination if you’re Bangladeshi and someone uses anti-Pakistani slurs against you.

Religion or belief

You must not be discriminated against if you belong to an organised religion - for example, if you’re Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist. This includes smaller religions like Rastafarianism or Paganism.

You also must not be discriminated against for belonging to a specific denomination or sect - for example if you’re Jewish and you’re Orthodox or Liberal.

Your religious beliefs are also protected. For example if you’re Christian, you must not be discriminated against for believing in creationism.

You’re also protected if you don’t have any religion or religious beliefs. For example, you mustn’t be discriminated against for being an atheist. 

Philosophical beliefs

You must not be discriminated against for your philosophical beliefs. It’s up to a court or tribunal to decide what counts as a philosophical belief. 

If you want to show your beliefs are philosophical, you need to show:

you genuinely hold the belief

it’s a moral, ethical, personal or philosophical belief - not an opinion based on facts 

it’s about an important aspect of human life and behaviour

it’s serious and important

it’s worthy of respect in a democratic society and compatible with human dignity

Some things courts have decided are philosophical beliefs include:

belief in climate change

anti-fox hunting beliefs

Some things that courts have decided are not philosophical beliefs include:

believing the Holocaust didn’t happen

being a member of a political party

You must not be discriminated against because of your sex. The Equality Act says your sex means if you’re a man or a woman.

If you’re transgender

Legally, your sex is the sex registered on your birth certificate. 

You can change the sex on your birth certificate if you have a gender recognition certificate. 

Non-binary is not legally recognised as a sex in the UK.

If you’re intersex

Your sex must still be registered as male or female on your birth certificate. Intersex people are not legally recognised in the UK and intersex is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. You can get advice and community support for intersex people on the ICON website .

The Equality Act defines your sexuality as your sexual orientation to men, women or both. 

You must not be discriminated against because you’re lesbian, gay, bisexual or straight. 

If you’re not lesbian, gay, bisexual or straight

The Equality Act is from 2010 and it doesn’t reflect the language lots of people use to describe their sexual orientation. 

If your orientation isn’t covered by the Equality Act, you might still be protected. For example if you’re pansexual, you might be able to claim protection as a bisexual.

If you’re asexual, you’re not currently protected from discrimination as an asexual. However, you might still be protected as lesbian, gay, bisexual or straight - for example if you’re asexual and you’re in a relationship.

If someone discriminates against you because they think you have a protected characteristic

If someone discriminates against you because of a protected characteristic, it might still be discrimination even if you don’t have the characteristic. This is called ‘discrimination by perception’. 

For example, it’s discrimination by perception if a pub refused to serve you and your friend because they thought you were a gay couple, even though you’re not. 

It can be discrimination by perception even if the person knows you don’t have the protected characteristic. For example, it’s discrimination by perception if your colleagues are harassing you by making jokes about you being gay - even though they know you’re not.

Discrimination by perception applies to all protected characteristics except:

pregnancy and maternity

marriage and civil partnerships

This means it’s not discrimination if someone treats you unfairly because they mistakenly think you’re pregnant, married or in a civil partnership.

If someone discriminates against you because of someone else’s protected characteristic

It might still be discrimination - for example, if a social worker treats you unfairly because of your wife and child’s ethnicity. This is called ‘discrimination by association’. 

Discrimination by association applies to all protected characteristics except:

This means it’s not discrimination if someone treats you unfairly because you’re associated with someone who is pregnant, married or in a civil partnership.

2. Check if the person or organisation that treated you unfairly is legally responsible for discrimination

The Equality Act protects you from discrimination in the following contexts:

work - for example your employer or employment agency

education - for example your school, college or university

businesses or service provision - like a shop or a train company

health or care provision - like a hospital or care home

housing provision - like a landlord or estate agent

public service provision - for example the police or your local council

clubs and associations - like a sports club

If someone who works for one of these organisations discriminates against you, the organisation is also responsible for the discrimination. This is called ‘vicarious liability’. For example if your colleague discriminates against you, your colleague and your employer are both legally responsible. 

If a customer or service user discriminates against you

It isn’t usually covered by the Equality Act - unless the business or service could have stopped it happening. For example, it might be unlawful discrimination if someone at your local leisure centre regularly harasses you and the staff don’t do anything to stop it - even though you keep complaining.

3. Check if what happened is a type of discrimination under the Equality Act

The Equality Act describes what sorts of behaviour count as different types of discrimination.

The types of discrimination include direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment.

You need to check if what you experienced counts as one or more of these types of discrimination.

Check what type of discrimination you experienced .

If you’ve experienced unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act

There are things you can do if you’ve experienced discrimination under the Equality Act. Discrimination isn’t a criminal offence - this means you can’t ask the police to investigate it. You’ll need to take action yourself.

You should follow these steps:

Complain to the person or organisation - for example by following their formal complaints procedure

Check if you can get help to solve the problem - for example through mediation or an ombudsman

Take the person or organisation to court - if you can’t solve the problem without going to court

Before you take action about discrimination, you need to decide what outcome you want and the best way to achieve it. Check how to take action about discrimination .

There are time limits for taking legal action about discrimination. If you need to go to court, it’s important to act quickly - the time limits can be as little as 3 months from the date you experienced discrimination. Check what the time limits are .

If what you experienced wasn’t discrimination

You can’t take action using the Equality Act. Check if you have a different type of legal complaint or if you can solve the problem another way. 

check if it was a hate crime

check if it was criminal harassment  

If you’re not sure if you’ve experienced discrimination

You can talk to an adviser. They can’t tell you if you’ve definitely experienced unlawful discrimination, but they can help you work out if your situation might be covered by the Equality Act. 

If they think your situation is covered, you can decide if you want to take action.

You can talk to a Citizens Advice adviser .

You can also contact an Equality Advisory Support Service adviser .

If you’re finding things difficult

Discrimination can have a big impact on your mental health. You should talk to your GP if you’re feeling depressed or anxious. 

You can find other ways to get help with your mental health on the Mind website .

If you need to speak to someone 

You can speak to a trained volunteer at organisations like Samaritans or Shout.

Helpline: 116 123 (Monday to Sunday at any time)

Welsh Language Line: 0808 164 0123 (Monday to Sunday 7pm to 11pm)

Calls to Samaritans are free.

You can find other ways to get in touch with Samaritans on their website .

You can also text 'SHOUT' to 85258 to start a conversation with a trained Shout volunteer. Texts are free, anonymous and confidential from anywhere in the UK.

Help us improve our website

Take 3 minutes to tell us if you found what you needed on our website. Your feedback will help us give millions of people the information they need.

The Equality Act 2010, a:gender and me

Emma Dunn is the Chair of a:gender, the cross-government network supporting trans and intersex staff across government. Emma is intersex and identifies as female; her pronouns are she/her or they/them.

The introduction of the new Equality Act on 1 October 2010 was a pioneering moment for trans people everywhere. It brought over 116 pieces of legislation into one single Act and went further than any previous piece of legislation. For the first time, trans people were protected from discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment.

Earlier landmark rulings such as P v S and Cornwall County Council in 1996 and Croft v Royal Mail Group in 2003 remain the prevalent pieces of litigation in gender reassignment law, but the new act saw further milestone decisions such as Bisson v Condor Limited in 2016 and Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover which was only reached in the last few weeks.

In the UK, the National LGBT Survey conducted in 2017 by the Government Equalities Office (GEO) found that over half of all trans respondents (more than 7,000 people) described themselves as non-binary . This made the latter ruling especially important for many of a:gender's members, since it confirmed for the first time that discrimination protections extend to non-binary and genderfluid identities, something which had previously been unclear.

Cases such as these demonstrate the complex challenges facing workplaces in achieving equality and inclusion for trans employees. Our developing understanding of the nuances of both sex and gender means that further challenges will inevitably continue to arise. One of the main obstacles is often a reluctance to cause offence. Employees may be aware of the gaps in their understanding and lack the language to confidently discuss issues with trans colleagues where barriers to inclusion are identified.

Another significant challenge is the lack of specific protection in the Equality Act for intersex people like me. Too often we see that this omission means employers simply fail to consider us, meaning significant numbers of employees face additional obstacles in the workplace (intersex people are thought to form 1.7% of the population, making being intersex about as common as having red hair).

These challenges have not gone unnoticed within the Civil Service. It's one of the reasons that a:gender exists –⁠ the Civil Service were revolutionary when they encouraged a Home Office departmental trans network to evolve into a national cross-government network for trans and intersex employees, able to support their members and provide advice and support to departments and agencies who wanted to be better than the bare minimum required by equality legislation.

Today we can really see the benefit of that foresight –⁠ a:gender have worked with Civil Service HR to formulate a policy package that was launched last year and is now available for departments to adopt which is quite literally pioneering. We believe it is the first policy anywhere in the UK that supports not just trans people but also intersex people and the parents and carers of trans and intersex dependants. This policy also signposts the training and support available from a:gender to increase understanding of the issues facing trans and intersex people and equips managers with the language to confidently discuss potential solutions.

The lesson is clear –⁠ staff networks are a powerful and effective tool for bringing about change. If you are facing challenges or want to learn more, join your network today!

We also welcome Civil Service trans, intersex and ally members in a:gender.

Visit the a:gender website , and download the membership form.

Supreme Court Delivers Big Win for Workplace Equality in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis Ruling

WASHINGTON — Today, the Supreme Court delivered a huge victory for workers and workplace equality. The court issued a ruling in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act bars employers from discriminating in decisions like lateral transfers, without requiring employees to show that the discriminatory decision caused “significant” disadvantage.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Missouri, and the Constitutional Accountability Center filed an amicus brief in support of plaintiff Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow, who claimed that her employer, the city of St. Louis, violated Title VII by transferring her to a new position and subsequently denying a transfer request because of her sex. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that it was not sufficient that the transfer decisions affected the “conditions” of her employment. Instead, Muldrow had to also establish that either her reassignment or her denied transfer request imposed “a material employment disadvantage.”

“Today’s Supreme Court decision is an enormous win for workers. Courts have too often dismissed cases under the ‘materially’ or ‘significantly’ adverse standard when employees have meritorious discrimination claims,” said Ming-Qi Chu, deputy director of ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project. “This heightened standard contradicts the statute’s text and undermines Congress’s plan of eliminating discrimination in employment in passing Title VII.”

“Today’s ruling strengthens the protections from discrimination intended by Title VII by solidifying workers’ right to have and experience consistent expectations on the privileges and conditions of their employment,” said Gillian Wilcox, deputy director for litigation at the ACLU of Missouri .

“Today’s decision rightly rejected the position that a Title VII plaintiff challenging a transfer must satisfy a heightened threshold of harm to bring her claim. As the Court recognized, ‘the text of Title VII imposes no such requirement.’ It’s an important reminder to lower courts that they should not add atextual requirements to the statute that constricts its scope,” said Brianne Gorod, chief counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center . “Today’s decision is a win not only for Ms. Muldrow, but also for workers more broadly.”

The court’s decision comes in midst of a coordinated attempt by conservative advocacy groups trying to cast this ruling as a danger to workplace DEI trainings and initiatives.

“The fearmongering of DEI opponents has no basis in law and fundamentally misunderstands how most DEI programs work. The purpose of DEI and other remedial workplace programs is to improve the process by which employment decisions are made and close the gap in opportunities among workers. They do not disadvantage any particular worker. This is why they have long been held lawful. These scare-tactics are trying to chill employers’ commitment and investment in expanding workplace opportunity. We won’t let them,” added Ming-Qi Chu.

The amicus brief can be found online here: https://www.aclu.org/cases/muldrow-v-city-of-st-louis?document=Amicus-Brief-in-Support-of-Petitioner

The Supreme Court opinion can be found here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-193_q86b.pdf

Muldrow v. City of St. Louis

Do employees claiming that they have been denied a transfer because of their race have to demonstrate in addition that the transfer caused a significant material disadvantage?

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

Stay Informed

Every month, you'll receive regular roundups of the most important civil rights and civil liberties developments. Remember: a well-informed citizenry is the best defense against tyranny.

By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU’s privacy statement.

Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release

• Women's Rights in the Workplace
• Women's Rights

Related Content

ACLU Comment on U.S. Department of Education’s Final Title IX Rule

Final ‘Pregnant Workers Fairness Act’ Regulations Were Released—And It’s Great News for Women

Fourth Circuit Rejects West Virginia Law Barring Transgender Girls From Student Athletics

How We're Fighting for Gender Equity Nationwide

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Biden Administration Releases Revised Title IX Rules

The new regulations extended legal protections to L.G.B.T.Q. students and rolled back several policies set under the Trump administration.

By Zach Montague and Erica L. Green

Reporting from Washington

The Biden administration issued new rules on Friday cementing protections for L.G.B.T.Q. students under federal law and reversing a number of Trump-era policies that dictated how schools should respond to cases of alleged sexual misconduct in K-12 schools and college campuses.

The new rules, which take effect on Aug. 1, effectively broadened the scope of Title IX, the 1972 law prohibiting sex discrimination in educational programs that receive federal funding. They extend the law’s reach to prohibit discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and widen the range of sexual harassment complaints that schools will be responsible for investigating.

“These regulations make it crystal clear that everyone can access schools that are safe, welcoming and that respect their rights,” Miguel A. Cardona, the education secretary, said in a call with reporters.

The rules deliver on a key campaign promise for Mr. Biden, who declared he would put a “quick end” to the Trump-era Title IX rules and faced mounting pressure from Democrats and civil rights leaders to do so.

The release of the updated rules, after two delays, came as Mr. Biden is in the thick of his re-election bid and is trying to galvanize key electoral constituencies.

Through the new regulations, the administration moved to include students in its interpretation of Bostock v. Clayton County, the landmark 2020 Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects gay and transgender workers from workplace discrimination. The Trump administration held that transgender students were not protected under federal laws, including after the Bostock ruling .

In a statement, Betsy DeVos, who served as Mr. Trump’s education secretary, criticized what she called a “radical rewrite” of the law, asserting that it was an “endeavor born entirely of progressive politics, not sound policy.”

Ms. DeVos said the inclusion of transgender students in the law gutted decades of protections and opportunities for women. She added that the Biden administration also “seeks to U-turn to the bad old days where sexual misconduct was sent to campus kangaroo courts, not resolved in a way that actually sought justice.”

While the regulations released on Friday contained considerably stronger protections for L.G.B.T.Q. students, the administration steered clear of the lightning-rod issue of whether transgender students should be able to play on school sports teams corresponding to their gender identity.

The administration stressed that while, writ large, exclusion based on gender identity violated Title IX, the new regulations did not extend to single-sex living facilities or sports teams. The Education Department is pursuing a second rule dealing with sex-related eligibility for male and female sports teams. The rule-making process has drawn more than 150,000 comments.

Under the revisions announced on Friday, instances where transgender students are subjected to a “hostile environment” through bullying or harassment, or face unequal treatment and exclusion in programs or facilities based on their gender identity, could trigger an investigation by the department’s Office for Civil Rights.

Instances where students are repeatedly referred to by a name or pronoun other than one they have chosen could also be considered harassment on a case-by-case basis.

“This is a bold and important statement that transgender and nonbinary students belong, in their schools and in their communities,” said Olivia Hunt, the policy director for the National Center for Transgender Equality.

The regulations appeared certain to draw to legal challenges from conservative groups.

May Mailman, the director of the Independent Women’s Law Center, said in a statement that the group planned to sue the administration. She said it was clear that the statute barring discrimination on the basis of “sex” means “binary and biological.”

“The unlawful omnibus regulation reimagines Title IX to permit the invasion of women’s spaces and the reduction of women’s rights in the name of elevating protections for ‘gender identity,’ which is contrary to the text and purpose of Title IX,” she said.

The existing rules, which took effect under Mr. Trump in 2020, were the first time that sexual assault provisions were codified under Title IX. They bolstered due process rights of accused students, relieved schools of some legal liabilities and laid out rigid parameters for how schools should conduct impartial investigations.

They were a sharp departure from the Obama administration’s interpretation of the law, which came in the form of unenforceable guidance documents directing schools to ramp up investigations into sexual assault complaints under the threat of losing federal funding. Scores of students who had been accused of sexual assault went on to win court cases against their colleges for violating their due process rights under the guidelines.

The Biden administration’s rules struck a balance between the Obama and Trump administration’s goals. Taken together, the regulation largely provides more flexibility for how schools conduct investigations, which advocates and schools have long lobbied for.

Catherine E. Lhamon, the head of the department’s Office for Civil Rights who also held the job under President Barack Obama, called the new rules the “most comprehensive coverage under Title IX since the regulations were first promulgated in 1975.”

They replaced a narrower definition of sex-based harassment adopted under the Trump administration with one that would include a wider range of conduct. And they reversed a requirement that schools investigate only incidents alleged to have occurred on their campuses or in their programs.

Still, some key provisions in the Trump-era rules were preserved, including one allowing informal resolutions and another prohibiting penalties against students until after an investigation.

Among the most anticipated changes was the undoing of a provision that required in-person, or so-called live hearings, in which students accused of sexual misconduct, or their lawyers, could confront and question accusers in a courtroom-like setting.

The new rules allow in-person hearings, but do not mandate them. They also require a process through which a decision maker could assess a party or witness’s credibility, including posing questions from the opposing party.

“The new regulations put an end to unfair and traumatic grievance procedures that favor harassers,” Kel O’Hara, a senior attorney at Equal Rights Advocates. “No longer will student survivors be subjected to processes that prioritize the interests of their perpetrators over their own well being and safety.”

The new rules also allow room for schools to use a “preponderance of evidence” standard, a lower burden of proof than the DeVos-era rules encouraged, through which administrators need only to determine whether it was more likely than not that sexual misconduct had occurred.

The renewed push for that standard drew criticism from legal groups who said the rule stripped away hard-won protections against flawed findings.

“When you are dealing with accusations of really one of the most heinous crimes that a person can commit — sexual assault — it’s not enough to say, ‘50 percent and a feather,’ before you brand someone guilty of this repulsive crime,” said Will Creeley, the legal director of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

The changes concluded a three-year process in which the department received 240,000 public comments. The rules also strengthen protections for pregnant students, requiring accommodations such as a bigger desk or ensuring access to elevators and prohibiting exclusion from activities based on additional needs.

Title IX was designed to end discrimination based on sex in educational programs or activities at all institutions receiving federal financial assistance, beginning with sports programs and other spaces previously dominated by male students.

The effects of the original law have been pronounced. Far beyond the impact on school programs like sports teams, many educators credit Title IX with setting the stage for academic parity today. Female college students routinely outnumber male students on campus and have become more likely than men of the same age to graduate with a four-year degree.

But since its inception, Title IX has also become a powerful vehicle through which past administrations have sought to steer schools to respond to the dynamic and diverse nature of schools and universities.

While civil rights groups were disappointed that some ambiguity remains for the L.G.B.T.Q. students and their families, the new rules were widely praised for taking a stand at a time when education debates are reminiscent to the backlash after the Supreme Court ordered schools to integrate.

More than 20 states have passed laws that broadly prohibit anyone assigned male at birth from playing on girls’ and women’s sports teams or participating in scholastic athletic programs, while 10 states have laws barring transgender people from using bathrooms based on their gender identity.

“Some adults are showing up and saying, ‘I’m going to make school harder for children,” said Liz King, senior program director of the education equity program at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. “It’s an incredibly important rule, at an incredibly important moment.”

Schools will have to cram over the summer to implement the rules, which will require a retraining staff and overhauling procedures they implemented only four years ago.

Ted Mitchell, the president of the American Council on Education, which represents more than 1,700 colleges and universities, said in a statement that while the group welcomed the changes in the new rule, the timeline “disregards the difficulties inherent in making these changes on our nation’s campuses in such a short period of time.”

“After years of constant churn in Title IX guidance and regulations,” Mr. Mitchell said, “we hope for the sake of students and institutions that there will be more stability and consistency in the requirements going forward.”

Zach Montague is based in Washington. He covers breaking news and developments around the district. More about Zach Montague

Erica L. Green is a White House correspondent, covering President Biden and his administration. More about Erica L. Green

• Skip to main content
• Skip to navigation

legislation.gov.uk

• Browse Legislation
• New Legislation
• Coronavirus Legislation
• Changes To Legislation

Search Legislation

Equality act 2010, you are here:.

• UK Public General Acts

Explanatory Notes

• Commentary on Sections
• Part 7:  Separate and single services
• Table of Contents
• Open full notes
• Explanatory Notes Table of contents

Print Options

Part 7 :  separate and single services.separate services for the sexes: paragraph 26.

729. This paragraph contains exceptions to the general prohibition of sex discrimination which allow the provision of separate services for men and women.

730. A provider can deliver separate services for men and women where providing a combined service would not be as effective. A provider can deliver separate services for men and women in different ways or to a different extent where providing a combined service would not be as effective and it would not be reasonably practicable to provide the service otherwise than as a separate service provided differently for each sex. In each case such provision has to be justified.

731. The exceptions also cover the exercise of public functions in respect of the “back-room” managerial, administrative and finance decisions which allow separate services to be provided.

732. This paragraph replaces similar provisions in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 that only cover public functions. The exceptions have been extended to cover all services, whether privately or publicly provided.

It would not be unlawful for a charity to set up separate hostels, one for homeless men and one for homeless women, where the hostels provide the same level of service to men and women because the level of need is the same but a unisex hostel would not be as effective.

Single-sex services: paragraph 27

733. This paragraph contains exceptions to the general prohibition of sex discrimination to allow the provision of single-sex services.

734. Single sex services are permitted where:

only people of that sex require it;

there is joint provision for both sexes but that is not sufficient on its own;

if the service were provided for men and women jointly, it would not be as effective and it is not reasonably practicable to provide separate services for each sex;

they are provided in a hospital or other place where users need special attention (or in parts of such an establishment);

they may be used by more than one person and a woman might object to the presence of a man (or vice versa); or

they may involve physical contact between a user and someone else and that other person may reasonably object if the user is of the opposite sex.

735. In each case, the separate provision has to be objectively justified.

736. These exceptions also cover public functions in respect of the “back-room” managerial, administrative and finance decisions which allow such single-sex services to be provided.

737. This paragraph replaces some similar provisions that only covered public functions and some that applied to services in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. These exceptions have been extended to cover both services and public functions.

738. These exceptions would allow:

a cervical cancer screening service to be provided to women only, as only women need the service;

a fathers’ support group to be set up by a private nursery as there is insufficient attendance by men at the parents’ group;

a domestic violence support unit to be set up by a local authority for women only but there is no men-only unit because of insufficient demand;

separate male and female wards to be provided in a hospital;

separate male and female changing rooms to be provided in a department store;

a massage service to be provided to women only by a female massage therapist with her own business operating in her clients’ homes because she would feel uncomfortable massaging men in that environment.

Gender reassignment: paragraph 28

739. This paragraph contains an exception to the general prohibition of gender reassignment discrimination in relation to the provision of separate- and single-sex services. Such treatment by a provider has to be objectively justified.

740. This paragraph replaces a similar provision in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful.

Services relating to religion: paragraph 29

741. This paragraph contains an exception to the general prohibition of sex discrimination to allow ministers of religion to provide separate and single-sex services.

742. The minister can provide such services so long as this is done for religious purposes, at a place occupied or used for those purposes and it is either necessary to comply with the tenets of the religion or for the purpose of avoiding conflict with the strongly held religious views of a significant number of the religion’s followers. This does not apply to acts of worship (which are not themselves “services” within the meaning of the Act so no exception is required).

743. This paragraph replaces a similar provision in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. The requirement regarding avoiding conflict with the religion’s followers has been altered in order to give consistency within the Act and some explanatory provisions have been added for the same reason.

A synagogue can have separate seating for men and women at a reception following a religious service.

Services generally provided only for persons who share a protected characteristic: paragraph 30

744. Paragraph 30 provides that a service provider does not breach the requirement in section 29 not to discriminate in the provision of a service if he or she supplies the service in such a way that it is commonly only used by people with a particular protected characteristic (for example, women or people of Afro-Caribbean descent) and he or she continues to provide that service in that way. If it is impracticable to provide the service to someone who does not share that particular characteristic, a service provider can refuse to provide the service to that person.

745. This is designed to replicate the effect of provisions previously contained in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Equality Act 2006, and extends the clarification they provide across all other protected characteristics for the first time.

A hairdresser who provides Afro-Caribbean hairdressing services would not be required to provide European hairdressing services as well. However, if a white English person wanted his hair braided and there was no technical difficulty to prevent that, it would be unlawful for the hairdresser to refuse to provide her services to him.

A butcher who sells halal meat is not required also to sell non-halal meat or kosher meat. However, if a non-Muslim customer wanted to purchase the meat that was on offer, he could not refuse to sell it to her.

Back to top

Options/Help

Print the full notes.

• PDF The Full Notes
• Web page The Full Notes

Print The Whole Division

• PDF The Whole Division
• Web page The Whole Division

Print The Whole Part

• PDF The Whole Part
• Web page The Whole Part

Print This Part only

• PDF This Part only
• Web page This Part only

Text created by the government department responsible for the subject matter of the Act to explain what the Act sets out to achieve and to make the Act accessible to readers who are not legally qualified. Explanatory Notes were introduced in 1999 and accompany all Public Acts except Appropriation, Consolidated Fund, Finance and Consolidation Acts.

More Resources

Access essential accompanying documents and information for this legislation item from this tab. Dependent on the legislation item being viewed this may include:

• the original print PDF of the as enacted version that was used for the print copy
• lists of changes made by and/or affecting this legislation item
• confers power and blanket amendment details
• all formats of all associated documents
• correction slips
• links to related legislation and further information resources
• New site design
• Accessibility
• Privacy Notice