Australian Court Ruling Bars Exclusion of Transgender Women from Female-Only Recruitment
An expert warns that employers cannot bar transgender women from initiatives aimed at addressing the under-representation of women in the workforce, following a landmark discrimination case.
Employers in Australia cannot exclude transgender women from recruitment drives designed to address the under-representation of women in the workforce, according to a human rights expert. This guidance follows a significant ruling by the High Court of Australia, which refused to hear an appeal in a discrimination case involving a transgender woman banned from a women-only social media app.
In 2021, Sall Grover, CEO of Giggle for Girls, removed transgender woman Roxanne Tickle from the app, citing her photograph as evidence that she was male. However, the Full Federal Court ruled on May 15, 2026, in favor of Ms. Tickle, finding that she had been subjected to discrimination and treated less favorably than a cisgender woman. The court determined that measures intended to promote equality for cisgender women could not infringe upon the rights of transgender women, who are also protected under existing discrimination laws.
Ms. Grover appealed this verdict to the High Court of Australia, but her bid for special leave to appeal was rejected, and costs were awarded to Ms. Tickle. Professor Paula Gerber of Monash University's Law Faculty emphasized that the decision makes it clear that employers cannot exclude transgender women from initiatives aimed at increasing women's representation in male-dominated sectors.
Case Details and Previous Rulings
The Full Federal Court's decision overturned an earlier finding of indirect discrimination by the Federal Court in 2024, which had awarded Ms. Tickle $10,000 in damages. The full court, however, found that Ms. Tickle had faced direct discrimination due to her gender-related appearance, irrespective of whether the company was aware she was transgender.
Judges also noted that Ms. Grover's personal beliefs about Ms. Tickle's gender did not justify her conduct during the legal proceedings. They criticized Ms. Grover for repeatedly misgendering Ms. Tickle and using male pronouns, deeming these actions "gratuitous, disrespectful and unnecessary." The court further found that Ms. Grover's public statements and behavior, which included portraying Ms. Tickle as a "predatory male," caused additional distress.
Consequently, the compensation awarded to Ms. Tickle was increased to $20,000, including $8,000 in aggravated damages. Giggle for Girls and Ms. Grover were also ordered to cover Ms. Tickle's legal costs for the appeal and cross-appeal, up to a combined total of $100,000.
Legal Arguments and Discrimination Law
During the legal proceedings, lawyers for Giggle for Girls argued that the app was exempt from discrimination law as it aimed to achieve substantial equality between men and women and serve as a "safe space" for women. Ms. Grover's legal team contended that the women-only app qualified as a "special measure" under the Sex Discrimination Act, intended to promote equality between genders.
However, lawyers representing the Sex Discrimination Commissioner countered that laws designed to promote equality for women could not be used as a pretext for discriminating against other protected groups. The Full Federal Court concurred, ruling that initiatives promoting equality for one group cannot automatically justify discrimination against another group covered by the Sex Discrimination Act.