Good Law Project: "EHRC has withdrawn interim guidance encouraging trans exclusion"
– 1 min read
Good Law Project has announced the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has taken down its "controversial interim guidance", which was rushed out in April, days after the Supreme Court’s decision on the meaning of “sex” under the Equality Act 2010.
The guidance, which faces an ongoing legal challenge from Good Law Project, told employers and service providers that they must exclude trans people from accessing gendered spaces and services, such as toilets.
According to Good Law Project, a "number of employers and service providers have already implemented this interim guidance, with a devastating impact on trans people. These actions may be against the law".
After six months of delay, the EHRC has now withdrawn its interim guidance, telling employers and service providers that, until a new code of practice is in place, they must take specialist legal advice that reflects their particular situation.
The EHRC’s exclusionary interim guidance has had a devastating impact on trans people’s lives
Good Law Project is supporting a number of trans and intersex individuals who have been affected by the interim guidance, including three claimants in its case against the EHRC, which will be heard in November.
Good Law Project’s executive director, Jo Maugham, said: "I've spent six months talking to trans people who are afraid to go out because of the climate of fear the EHRC's Interim Guidance created. Some are suicidal - and I am aware of people who have sought to take their own lives. The EHRC has finally taken it down - and my question to them is: if the High Court finds the Guidance unlawful, will you apologise to those whose lives you have so profoundly harmed?"
Good Law Project trans rights lead, Jess O’Thomson, added: “The EHRC’s exclusionary interim guidance has had a devastating impact on trans people’s lives. This rushed EHRC guidance has not only put trans people at serious risk, but may also have encouraged organisations to act unlawfully. Now the guidance has been withdrawn, so should the exclusionary policies that organisations rashly implemented in its aftermath. If not, they could find themselves in hot water.”
