EHRC Code of Practice — Services, Public Functions and Associations (2026)

In brief

Statutory Code of Practice issued by the EHRC under s.14 Equality Act 2006, governing services, public functions and associations. The Code establishes the proportionality structure for service provision under EA 2010 Part 3 + Sch.3 + Part 7. Operative architecture: (1) MIXED services are the starting point — a service open to all sexes is the default, with single-/separate-sex services being a justified exception (paras 13.99, 13.122); (2) SINGLE- or SEPARATE-SEX provision is a justified exception, with the burden on the provider to demonstrate proportionate means + legitimate aim (paras 13.113–13.122, 13.143; cost alone insufficient — para 5.54; case-by-case not blanket — paras 13.134–13.138); (3) WITHIN a lawfully-established single-sex service, trans people of the opposite sex MAY be excluded (paras 13.130–13.132, 13.144–13.145) — BUT exclusion is NEVER mandatory, and it is very unlikely to be proportionate to leave a trans person with no facilities at all (para 13.148). The Code fully incorporates FWS-UKSC-2025 (paras 2.87–2.89): sex, woman and man mean biological sex throughout EqA; a GRC does not change sex for EqA purposes; trans people retain protection under gender reassignment. Replaces the 2011 Code's para 13.57 (which previously directed providers to treat trans people according to gender presented).

Key provisions

• paras-2-87-to-2-89 — FWS incorporation — biological-sex foundation throughout EqA: Paras 2.87–2.89 fully incorporate FWS-UKSC-2025: sex, woman and man mean biological sex throughout EqA; a GRC does not change sex for EqA purposes; trans people retain protection under gender reassignment.
• paras-2-52-to-2-53 — Gender reassignment retains EA 2010 protection: Paras 2.52–2.53 confirm that trans people retain protection under EA 2010 gender reassignment (s.7) even though sex (s.11) is biological. Both protected characteristics co-exist.
• paras-13-92-to-13-111 — Mixed service is the starting point (paras 13.99, 13.122): MIXED services are the architectural default. A service open to all sexes is the starting point; single-sex/separate-sex provision is an exception that requires justification. The proportionality burden rests with the provider, not the trans service user.
• paras-13-113-to-13-133 — Proportionality framework — justified exception, never mandatory: Single-/separate-sex provision is a justified exception (paras 13.113–13.122, 13.143). The provider bears the burden to demonstrate (a) legitimate aim, (b) proportionate means, (c) less intrusive measure considered, (d) fair balance. Cost alone insufficient (para 5.54). Case-by-case not blanket (paras 13.134–13.138). Exclusion is NEVER mandatory.
• paras-13-130-to-13-131 — KEY RULE — a service admitting both sexes is not single-sex and cannot use the Sch.3 exception: A service that admits members of both sexes (e.g., women and trans women) is NOT a single-sex service and CANNOT rely on the Sch.3 exception. Such a service is 'very likely' unlawful sex discrimination against excluded persons and potentially harassment against women using it.
• paras-13-145-to-13-151 — Worked examples — proportionality in single-sex contexts: Paras 13.145–13.151 work through proportionality in single-sex service contexts including the floor at 13.148: 'very unlikely to be proportionate to leave a trans person with no service they can use.'
• paras-13-161-to-13-182 — Verification + documentation requirements: Paras 13.161–13.182 set out the verification + documentation requirements for providers relying on single-/separate-sex exceptions: written justification, EqIA, evidence of consultation, case-by-case decision logs, etc.
• oeo-eia-overreach-guardrail — OEO Equality Impact Assessment — the Code's own overreach guardrail (acknowledge AND mitigate): The OEO/MWRE combined Equality Impact Assessment published alongside the Code (21 May 2026) found, on the record, that following the Code produces NEGATIVE gender-reassignment impacts across ALL THREE PSED limbs. It flags risks the EHRC's own EIA does not resolve: double exclusion (barred from gender-aligned space by the biological-sex rule AND birth-sex space by GR discrimination → no service at all); involuntary disclosure / outing; third-space-provision gap; gender policing; safeguarding. The two competing interests are treated asymmetrically — the majority's anticipated, unevidenced discomfort operates as a legitimate AIM justifying exclusion (§13.147), while the trans person's actual, immediate exclusion operates only as a FLOOR constraint (§13.148). A government department's published admission of negative trans impact is the strongest single guardrail against reading the Code as an exclusion charter.
• verification-limit-cannot-demand-proof — You cannot just ask people to prove themselves (§§13.160–13.182): No UK document reliably evidences biological sex — passports, driving licences and birth certificates can all reflect acquired gender (§13.179). It is not appropriate to ask about sex for incidental facilities such as toilets (§13.170). The primary lawful means of operating a single-sex service is clear communication — signage, admission terms, induction (§13.167); assessment is case-by-case against observable factors (§13.168), NOT documentary proof. Onward disclosure of GRC information is a criminal offence in some circumstances under GRA s.22 (§13.181); sex data is special-category data under DPA 2018 / UK GDPR (§13.182).

When relevant

Cite when: (a) services-side discrimination is at issue (EA 2010 Part 3 + Sch.3); (b) single-sex or separate-sex provision is in issue — including service-user-facing facilities, accommodation, healthcare, sports, support services; (c) any post-FWS EA 2010 definition question (sex, woman, man) — paras 2.87–2.89 are the operative anchor; (d) proportionality analysis in services contexts (Bank Mellat / Akerman applied via the Code); (e) Part 7 associations — the Code covers associations alongside services and public functions; (f) advising organisations on defensibility documentation requirements (paras 13.161–13.182). NOTE: until commencement, the Code is authoritative + evolving but NOT yet binding on courts/tribunals — cite as the regulator's settled view + likely post-commencement standard, NOT as in-force statutory code.