Supreme Court ruling on woman definition ‘could mean UK is not meeting human rights obligations', lawyer warns
The Supreme Court 's decision to rule that woman and sex in the 2010 Equality Act 'refer to a biological woman and biological sex' possibly showed that the UK is not meeting its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, a lawyer has warned.
Robin White was the first barrister to transition from male to female in practice at the employment and discrimination bar in 2011.
"I'm not particularly impressed by this ruling because I think it hasn't engaged with the difficulties that it will cause properly," she told The Independent.
The judges' decision was in response to a challenge brought by campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS), over the inclusion of transgender women with GRCs in the 50 per cent female quota mandated for public boards in Scotland.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
4 hours ago
- Reuters
Thousands who did not pass California bar exam get a chance to practice, for now
June 11 (Reuters) - More than 3,300 people who failed or withdrew from taking California's troubled February bar exam will have the option to work under the supervision of an experienced attorney while they wait to take the attorney licensing exam, the Supreme Court of California ruled on Wednesday. The court approved, opens new tab a request by the State Bar of California to extend an existing provisional licensure program enacted in 2020 when the bar exam was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, which allows examinees to work under supervision for two years as they prepare to retake the test. An estimated 3,340 would be eligible for provisional licensure, according to the petition submitted by the state bar. The court on Wednesday also granted the state bar permission to 'impute' performance test scores for those unable to complete that test section due to technical problems—a process that involves using submitted answers to project their performance on sections that were missing. The state bar estimates that imputing performance test scores will result in 79 more people going from failing to passing and bump up the overall pass rate from the current 63% to 65%—which is nearly double the average 35% rate in recent years. More than 200 people moved from failing to passing earlier this month when the state bar signed off on a separate grading change, which moved the overall pass rate from 56% to 63%. Some state bar trustees have expressed concern about some of the exam's proposed remedies and the higher pass rate, citing the bar's duty to protect the public from unqualified lawyers. At the state bar's request, the California Supreme Court already lowered the raw score needed to pass the exam and imputed scores for both the multiple-choice and essay portions of the February exam. The state bar did not immediately respond on Wednesday to a request for comment on the Supreme Court's latest rulings but has previously said it "would never take any steps to detract from its public protection mission.' California's February bar exam—the first not to use any components of the national test—was plagued with technical and logistical problems, including software crashes and interruptions from proctors. That exam has sparked several lawsuits, including at least two filed by test takers and one filed by the state bar against the testing company that administered it. State Bar Executive Director Leah Wilson said she will step down in July, citing the bungled rollout of the new exam. While it approved the bulk of the state bar's petitions, the California Supreme Court denied a request to explore proposals for admitting attorneys licensed in other states without requiring them to take and pass the state's bar exam. That would require a change in state law, which requires bar passage for admission, the court noted. Read more: Hundreds of California bar exam-takers move from fail to pass with new scoring California's February bar exam mess is costing millions to clean up
Spectator
6 hours ago
- Spectator
Pride continues to crumble
In the canteen of the House of Lords last week, a friendly server asked me if I'd like some 'Pride pudding'. This turned out to be a rainbow-coloured crumble created in honour of Pride month. 'Er, no thanks,' I said, and then noticed a large 'Progress Pride' flag behind the counter. Oh dear, I thought. That'll set the cat among the pigeons. Sure enough, a couple of hours later the GC Cons Peers' WhatsApp group erupted. This is made up of those dinosaurs who style themselves 'gender critical' – i.e. they believe sex is biological, binary and immutable. For the uninitiated, the Progress Pride flag features a large, multicoloured chevron superimposed on the standard rainbow layout. The colours correspond to different groups that don't feel adequately represented by the common or garden Pride flag, and include the colours of the trans flag. (Yes, there's one of those, too.) Among the embattled armies facing off on the red benches, this flag is the banner of those who believe that trans women are women and should be granted unfettered access to women's spaces. That's long been an issue of heated debate in the Lords, but it's reached fever pitch following the recent Supreme Court ruling. We GC Cons naively thought this would settle the matter in our favour, but naturally the same progressives who during the Brexit wars condemned those who questioned the wisdom of the Supreme Court justices as rabble-rousing populists are now quick to condemn them as 'bigots' and 'transphobes'. Scarcely a week passes without the two sides locking horns over the judgment, with the LGBTQQIP2SAA Lab Peers arguing that it's meaningless until the Equality and Human Rights Commission has issued official 'guidance' about how to interpret it. Baroness Falkner, the EHRC's chair, is sympathetic to the GC cause, but she's due to step down in November and our opponents' plan is to delay the 'guidance' until they've managed to install a stooge in her place. Meanwhile, they're not about to lower their banner. So for the Progress Pride flag to be planted in the Lords' canteen was, for the GC Cons, a major defeat. The common parts of the House are supposed to be neutral ground. And, of course, another tactic of the pink-haired radicals (even some nonagenarian Labour baronesses have pink hair) is to present their highly contentious views on gender as politically settled, like climate change. In other words, this was a double blow – they'd parked their tanks in the demilitarised zone and succeeded in disguising them as electrically-powered UN peacekeeping vehicles. This could not stand! A tactic of the pink-haired radicals is to present their highly contentious views on gender as politically settled Several GC Cons immediately fired off letters to the Lords' bewigged officials. The doughty Baroness Nicholson was first over the top, quickly followed by Baroness Jenkin – the Boadicea of our tribe – and yours truly. My argument was that under the Equality Act the Lords has an obligation to foster good relations between those who have a particular protected characteristic and those who don't. Believing that sex is real is a protected belief and allowing the banner of those who think sex is 'assigned at birth' to fly in the canteen is hardly fostering good relations. No doubt the same peers who've rejected the Supreme Court ruling would dispute this interpretation of the Act and refer the matter to the EHRC, with judgment delayed until Falkner has gone. But, amazingly, the powers that be appear to have been convinced – not just by my letter, I'm sure – and over the weekend the flag was removed. Pride pudding is still on sale, but that's fine; it was the flying of the trans colours that was the issue, not the celebration of Pride Month. I even said in my letter that I had no problem with the Pride flag, which isn't strictly true. I'd prefer it if public institutions remained impartial when it comes to all political battles, even those the progressive left can justifiably claim to have won. No objection to gay rights obviously, but the Pride flag has come to mean much more than that and I find its ubiquitous presence in June oppressive, as if you're being ordered what to think about a whole cluster of issues. But one battle at a time and for now I'll take the win. In late breaking news, Labour has announced its preferred candidate to succeed Baroness Falkner – Mary-Ann Stephenson – and stone me if she isn't a bit GC herself. Was that a cock-up? I suspect not. My impression is that Sir Keir and his cronies recognise that prolonging this battle is a vote-loser, just as it was for the Democrats in the US election. The GC Cons may think we've succeeded in forcing the trans zealots to lower the Progress Pride flag. But in reality it's Labour that has abandoned this fight.
Times
6 hours ago
- Times
Equality Act blamed for surge in failed race discrimination cases
Equality laws are causing unsuccessful racial discrimination lawsuits to 'skyrocket', and more claims are made by NHS employees than those from any other organisation, according to a report. Between 2017 and last year the number of employment tribunals that included a claim of discrimination based on the defined characteristic of 'race' in the Equality Act 2010 almost tripled, from 285 to 829, research by the campaign group Don't Divide Us has found. In total, there were 5,523 cases over this period. Despite the rise in workplace discrimination cases, the levels of success have remained more or less unchanged since 2017, the report says. Only 281 claims were upheld in employment courts from 2017 to 2024, 5 per cent of those made. The group said the NHS was involved in more discrimination cases than any other employer, with 488 claims made in the period — of which 19, or 4 per cent, were upheld. Don't Divide Us believes in 'colour-blind anti-racism' and campaigns against 'divisive' political ideas such as critical race theory being imported from America. The findings have been published as part of a wider report on equality laws by the organisation entitled 'The Equality Act Isn't Working: Equalities Legislation and the Breakdown of Informal Civility in the Workplace'. It argues that rather than making society more equal and tackling discrimination, the Equality Act has contributed to a grievance culture in which people resort to legal action to resolve 'petty disputes and imagined slights'. The report says the remit of equality law has come under increasing pressure from lobby groups seeking to 'promote their role in the race-relations sector'. This trend has been exacerbated by the rise of identity politics and the increased politicisation of culture, it adds. Anna Loutfi, one of the report's authors and a barrister specialising in employment, equalities and human rights law, said it was time for the government to review the Equality Act and potentially repeal it. She said: 'The question is: Do we need the law to be based on protected characteristics? The reality of the workplace is that it is not neatly categorisable into people who 'share' protected characteristics and people who don't, though equality law demands that we think that way. 'Equality law is increasingly becoming divorced from reality, as employees rely on protected characteristics to argue poor treatment, rather than relying on the honest facts of their situation. Many litigants may try to rewrite the facts of their case to 'fit' a narrative of discrimination based on race, sex, disability etc. A cross word between two employees of different ethnic backgrounds can be transformed into racial harassment after the fact. 'The inadvertent effect of the Equality Act is to make the workplace environment more toxic, especially when it comes to issues such as race, between people who would have rubbed along fine before becoming aware of their respective 'protected characteristics'. 'Overall, protected characteristics in law are not adding to social cohesion; rather, they are inflating numbers of discrimination cases so society appears more and more discriminatory with every passing year, in spite of ever more diversity and inclusion initiatives — that surely can't be right.' Under the Equality Act, it is against the law to discriminate against someone based on nine protected characteristics. These include age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. • Loutfi pointed to a recent case in April of a black female employee suing her boss for racism because it had been suggested she had been 'smoking something', which, she said, epitomised the way such protected characteristics were being 'weaponised' in the workplace. In the dispute, Gemma Spencer sued her employers for race discrimination when a company director, Mark Kelly, asked her line manager if she had been 'smoking something' after a perceived error. Spencer, an administration worker, told a panel that she had had her hair in braids when Kelly made the remark. After she accused him of racism, Kelly said he in 'no way meant to make some remark about her being a Rastafarian'. His assertion was rejected by the judge, who said the comment was 'unwanted conduct' that 'violated the dignity' of Spencer, who was awarded £35,109 in compensation. Alka Sehgal Cuthbert, director of Don't Divide Us, said: 'The Equality Act has achieved the exact opposite of its stated aim, making the UK a less tolerant and less equal place. It provides the legal scaffolding that supports this surge in workplace discrimination claims, the overwhelming majority of which have been found groundless. 'Instead of bringing greater fairness, equality, and harmony, the [Equality Act] has been a major vector for curtailing the fundamental freedoms for citizens to speak their mind, and to appear before the law as equal.' • Calling female staff 'lads' could be sex harassment, judge says The Equality and Human Rights Commission said: 'We have a statutory duty to monitor and advise on the effectiveness of our equality laws. While progress has been made towards a fairer country, we know challenges to equality remain and our society has not stood still. 'Increases in litigation may indicate an issue with how the legislation is being interpreted, and we consider all evidence carefully when we advise government and parliamentarians on the effectiveness of the Equality Act. However, a post-legislative review of the Equality Act is a decision for the UK government and parliament.' A government spokesperson said: 'The UK has a longstanding history of tackling all forms of discrimination and harassment. 'We are proud of the Equality Act 2010 and the rights and protections it affords individuals of all backgrounds, and will continue to uphold its provisions.'
