Employers cannot leave transgender women out of workplace programs designed to tackle the under-representation of women, a leading human rights academic has said.
The comments come after the High Court declined to hear a challenge arising from a landmark discrimination case involving the meaning of “woman” and a transgender woman’s removal from a women-only social media platform.
In 2021, Sall Grover, the chief executive of Giggle for Girls, blocked Roxanne Tickle from using the app after examining her photograph and concluding that she was male.
On May 15, 2026, the Full Federal Court ruled for Ms Tickle, deciding that she had been discriminated against and treated less favourably than a cisgender woman.
The court said efforts to advance equality for cisgender women could not be pursued by disadvantaging transgender women, who are likewise protected by anti-discrimination legislation.
Ms Grover later sought permission to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The application was rejected, and she was ordered to pay Ms Tickle’s costs.
Professor Paula Gerber of Monash University’s Law Faculty told Workplace Express Australia that the judgment could have far-reaching consequences for employers trying to improve the representation of women in traditionally male-dominated sectors.
She said the ruling made it “crystal clear” that workplace initiatives intended to increase women’s participation cannot exclude transgender women.
Roxanne Tickle secured a landmark discrimination ruling against women-only app Giggle for Girls after being excluded because of her gender-related appearance
The Federal Court found Giggle for Girls chief executive Sall Grover had discriminated against Roxanne Tickle by preventing her from accessing the app
Giggle for Girls describes itself as a social media platform exclusively for women
The Full Federal Court decision represented a major win for Ms Tickle, replacing an earlier finding of indirect discrimination with a ruling that she had experienced direct discrimination.
In 2024, Federal Court Justice Robert Bromwich had found that Giggle for Girls indirectly discriminated against Ms Tickle and awarded her $10,000 in compensation.
DISCOVER MORE: Katie Thurston Responds to Surgery Criticism Amid Cancer Battle
The appeal court went further, finding that Ms Tickle was directly discriminated against because of her gender-related appearance, whether or not the company understood that she was transgender.
The judges also ruled that Ms Grover’s personal views about Ms Tickle’s gender did not excuse her conduct throughout the legal dispute.
They criticised Ms Grover for repeatedly using incorrect pronouns and referring to Ms Tickle as male, describing parts of her conduct as “gratuitous, disrespectful and unnecessary”.
The court said Ms Grover’s public statements and actions had caused Ms Tickle additional distress, including comments that described her as a “predatory male”.
The judges consequently increased the compensation to $20,000, with $8,000 awarded as aggravated damages.
Giggle for Girls and Ms Grover were also ordered to cover Ms Tickle’s legal expenses arising from the appeal and cross-appeal, subject to a combined cap of $100,000.
Throughout the lengthy proceedings, lawyers representing Giggle for Girls argued that the platform was protected from discrimination claims because it was intended to help achieve substantial equality between men and women.
Its intention was to create a ‘safe space’ for women, Ms Grover’s lawyers said.
‘This case is the ‘what is a woman?’ case, and one must be able to speak about it fearlessly and frankly,’ Ms Grover’s legal team said.
Grover, argued that the women-only app qualified as a special measure under the Sex Discrimination Act because it was designed to promote equality between men and women.
However, lawyers for the Sex Discrimination Commissioner challenged the company’s argument, warning that laws designed to promote equality for women could not be used as an excuse to discriminate against other groups.
The Full Federal Court agreed, finding that measures intended to promote equality for one group could not automatically justify discrimination against another group protected under the Sex Discrimination Act.