Summary
Despite a Supreme Court ruling defining "sex" as biological in the Equality Act, recent employment tribunal outcomes demonstrate that trans people still maintain significant legal protections against discrimination and harassment. These cases suggest that the predicted "landmark" shift toward excluding trans women from single-sex spaces has failed to materialize, creating a new legal front for inclusive workplace policies in 2026.
The Equality Act: Why Trans Rights Still Prevail in Tribunals
On 16 April, the Supreme Court ruled that, in the Equality Act (EA) 2010, “sex”, “man” and “woman” refer to biological sex, and that a Gender Recognition Certificate does not change a person’s sex for that Act.
Time will tell whether this judgment violates Goodwin; however, in our opinion, it likely does.
Needless to say, many gender‑critical (GC) campaigners and their media allies hailed the SC judgment as a “landmark.” Some organisations, including the WI, Labour Women’s Conference, and Girlguiding, have since cited legal risk to justify excluding trans women, even where no court has required them to do so.
Yet when these ideas have been tested in employment tribunals, the sweeping anti‑trans results that the GC groups hoped for have not materialised; instead, they show that the EA can still protect trans people in practice.
One early decision pushing back on the “landmark” narrative was the case of trans postal worker Sophie Cole, who successfully brought claims of harassment and discrimination. The tribunal accepted that a trans woman can be treated as a (non-genetic) female victim of sex‑based harassment where abusers “perceive” her as a woman.
Later came Kelly v Leonardo UK, heavily publicised by GC networks because it centred on toilets. Ms Kelly objected to trans colleagues using the women’s toilets and alleged harassment and sex discrimination. The tribunal rejected her claims, finding that Leonardo’s policy did not place women at a particular disadvantage and was a proportionate way of creating an inclusive workplace for trans staff.
Peggie v NHS Fife and trans colleague Dr Beth Upton were likewise framed as a test to access ‘women’s spaces’, but the outcome was a disaster for the GC. Nurse Peggie brought 47 claims, but lost 43, including all claims against Dr Upton, saying that, in fact, Peggie had harassed her trans colleague. It did not endorse the idea that simply sharing workplace spaces with a trans woman amounts to unlawful treatment of non‑trans staff. In this case, TransLucent intervened, and we are obviously pleased with the result.
Finally, Allison Bailey’s appeal failed to deliver the victory against Stonewall that the GC hoped for. The appeal was dismissed, and while the courts confirm that gender-critical beliefs are protected as philosophical beliefs, this does not create a licence to discriminate against trans people. Nor does it strip protection from affirming beliefs such as “trans women are women”, which also fall within the law’s protection.
Taken together, these cases show that, even after the SC ruling, the EA still offers meaningful tools for trans people to challenge harassment and discrimination – leaving those who practice exclusion open to litigation in 2026.
The emerging story from the tribunals is that trans people can and do win – that inclusive policies are lawful, and that attempts to drive trans women out of ‘single-sex spaces’ have not received the sweeping endorsement in law that GC advocates and their right-wing media promised.
In 2026, we are likely to see a new front emerge with trans human rights campaigners advocating that the gender-critical beliefs have become objectionable by way of manifestation.
The Equality Act: Why Trans Rights Still Prevail in Tribunals
