"As Britain's equality regulator, we uphold and enforce the Equality Act. This is the second time the way we have done our duty in the wake of the supreme court's ruling has been tested in the courts. Both times our actions have been found to be lawful. It's our job to champion everyone's rights under the Equality Act, including those with the protected characteristics of sex, sexual orientation and gender reassignment. A shared and correct understanding of the law is essential to that endeavour."
"The ruling did find there was scope for a strong argument that allowing a trans woman to use a female toilet did not amount to discrimination against biological men, as some have argued since the supreme court ruling. But in applying the ruling to workplaces, Swift came to the conclusion that transgender employees being forced to out themselves to co-workers by using unisex toilets did not amount to less favourable treatment in the eyes of the law,"
Mr Justice Swift found the Good Law Project lacked standing and dismissed its challenge to interim Equality and Human Rights Commission advice that barred transgender people from using bathrooms and changing facilities according to lived gender. The interim advice was published after a supreme court ruling on biological sex. The judge rejected claims that the guidance was rushed, legally flawed, or excluded trans and intersex people. The ruling acknowledged an argument that allowing a trans woman to use a female toilet need not discriminate against biological men, but found workplace claims about being outed by using unisex toilets did not amount to less favourable treatment in law.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]