Is It Ever OK to Specify Gender in a Job Advertisement?

Employers should normally advertise vacancies to applicants of any sex and assess them against the skills, experience and abilities needed for the role. However, there are limited circumstances in which restricting a vacancy to a particular sex can be lawful.

The distinction is between a requirement that is necessary for the work and a preference about who the employer would like to recruit. An organisation may have a legitimate ambition to improve the gender balance of its leadership team, but that does not automatically permit it to advertise for a “female CFO” or a “male Chief Executive”.

This article focuses on Great Britain: England, Scotland and Wales. Northern Ireland has a separate equality framework, and international appointments require consideration of the relevant local rules. It provides general information rather than legal advice on a particular vacancy.

The starting point: recruitment must not unlawfully discriminate

The Equality Act 2010 protects applicants against discrimination because of sex and other protected characteristics. Recruitment arrangements, selection and offers must comply with the law. An employer should therefore avoid wording that excludes applicants because they are men or women unless a specific exception applies.

Employers also need to distinguish between sex and gender reassignment, which are separate protected characteristics. The everyday phrase “gender requirement” is not sufficiently precise when deciding which legal exception, if any, applies.

When can a sex requirement be lawful?

Schedule 9 of the Equality Act allows an occupational requirement in defined circumstances. Having regard to the nature or context of the work, the requirement must be occupational, and applying it must be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The employer must be able to demonstrate that the exception applies.

In practical terms, the assessment should address three questions:

• What does this particular job involve?
• Why is the restriction necessary?
• Could the objective be achieved through a less discriminatory arrangement?

Potential examples include certain intimate personal care duties, some specialist support work with people who have experienced sexual violence, and acting roles where authenticity requires a performer of a particular sex. These are illustrations, rather than blanket exemptions for entire sectors.

A care provider cannot assume every vacancy may be restricted simply because some employees provide intimate care. Similarly, a service supporting women cannot automatically apply the same restriction to its counsellors, finance team and Chief Executive. Each role requires its own assessment.

What usually does not justify a restriction?

Employers should be particularly cautious about explanations such as:

• “Our customers prefer dealing with men.”
• “We need a woman to balance the board.”
• “The previous employee was female.”
• “Men are better suited to the pressure of this role.”
• “Women understand this market better.”

These statements describe preferences, representation goals or assumptions about ability. They do not, by themselves, establish an occupational requirement.

For example, a business selling products mainly to women can specify relevant consumer insight, market knowledge and commercial experience. It should not assume that only a woman can possess those qualities.

Likewise, a demanding operational role should describe its actual responsibilities rather than use sex as a substitute for resilience, availability or physical capability.

What does this mean for C-suite recruitment?

For most commercial executive vacancies, the appropriate criteria concern leadership, financial responsibility, governance, strategy and delivery. Being a man or a woman will ordinarily be unrelated to whether an applicant can perform those duties.

Consider an organisation with an entirely male executive team. It may reasonably want more women to see and consider its next leadership vacancy. A practical response is to examine its search channels, selection criteria and working arrangements, then broaden access to the opportunity.

Advertising “Female Chief Operating Officer required” takes a different step: it excludes applicants because of sex. The desire to improve representation does not itself establish the occupational requirement needed to justify that restriction.

Specialist organisations may present more complex cases. If a senior role combines leadership with substantial direct work in a sensitive service, its duties and context require careful examination. Neither the executive title nor the organisation’s mission settles the answer.

Encouraging applications is different from excluding applicants

Positive action can help employers address disadvantage or underrepresentation without closing a vacancy to other applicants.

For example, an employer with a reasonable basis for identifying underrepresentation might use wording such as:

We particularly welcome applications from women, who are currently underrepresented in our senior leadership team. Applications are open to all suitably qualified candidates, and selection will follow the published criteria.

This should reflect the actual circumstances and recruitment process. It should not disguise an intention to reject other candidates automatically.

Employers can also broaden advertising, engage professional networks, review unnecessary experience requirements and offer suitable flexibility. These measures can expand the pool of qualified candidates while retaining a fair assessment process.

There is also a limited positive action provision for recruitment and promotion under section 159. Subject to its conditions, it permits a tie-break between candidates of equal merit. Relevant conditions include a reasonable belief in disadvantage or disproportionately low participation, proportionality and the absence of an automatic preference policy.

It does not permit appointing a less suitable candidate simply to meet a diversity target. Employers should also avoid treating everyone who passes a minimum threshold as equally qualified.

Use current, precise terminology

On 16 April 2025, the Supreme Court held in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers that “sex”, “man” and “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex. The Court also confirmed that trans people retain protection against discrimination and harassment, including through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

This matters because older online guidance may use an interpretation that predates the judgment. Employers should check publication dates and subsequent legal developments before copying wording from an existing advertisement.

A restriction relating to sex and a restriction relating to gender reassignment are not interchangeable. Employers should not assume that establishing one requirement automatically establishes another. Where eligibility raises these issues, obtain advice on the precise restriction and its justification before publishing.

Best practice when an occupational requirement may apply

1. Define the duties before discussing eligibility

Start with an accurate job description. Identify the particular tasks or working circumstances that might make a restriction necessary.

Avoid beginning with a preferred candidate profile and constructing a justification around it. The assessment should follow from the work.

2. Record the objective and supporting evidence

Explain what the restriction is intended to achieve. Depending on the role, this might concern privacy, dignity or the effective delivery of sensitive support.

Document the evidence connecting the objective to the actual duties. A useful internal assessment should explain the tasks affected, the people whose needs are relevant and the consequences of removing the restriction.

3. Consider alternatives

Examine whether the objective could be achieved through different staffing arrangements, revised responsibilities or another practical adjustment.

Record why workable alternatives would or would not meet the need. This is particularly important where the sensitive duty forms only a small part of a wider position.

4. Obtain advice before publication

Specialist employment law advice should address the particular job, the relevant exception and the proposed wording.

A previously published advert is not evidence that a restriction is lawful. Nor does another employer’s use of similar wording establish that it is appropriate for your vacancy.

5. Explain the requirement clearly

Where a restriction has been established, explain it in the advertisement rather than leaving candidates to infer why it exists.

For example, subject to advice confirming the facts and wording:

Female Personal Care Worker

This role involves providing intimate personal care to female service users. A requirement for the postholder to be female applies under Schedule 9, Part 1 of the Equality Act 2010 to protect service users’ privacy and dignity.

The statement explains the duty, purpose and legal basis. The EHRC’s Employment Statutory Code recommends identifying an applicable occupational requirement in the advertisement. Merely adding “Schedule 9 applies”, however, cannot make an unjustified restriction lawful.

6. Keep the recruitment process consistent and respectful

The person specification, recruiter instructions and selection process should reflect the same approved requirement.

Give candidates a contact for eligibility questions, protect confidentiality and avoid intrusive enquiries unrelated to establishing eligibility. Recruiters and interviewers should understand both the requirement and its limits.

7. Review the justification each time

A requirement that was justified previously may cease to be justified when duties, services or staffing arrangements change. Reassess it before advertising the vacancy again. Acas specifically advises employers against assuming that a previous occupational requirement will remain justified in a future recruitment exercise.

Responsibilities for recruiters and job boards

As a practical publishing standard, recruiters and job boards should request the employer’s written rationale before accepting a restricted advert.

Ask which duties justify the restriction, what exception is relied upon and whether the wording has been reviewed. Where the explanation consists only of customer preference, team balance or assumptions about ability, further scrutiny is needed.

Moving a restriction into a confidential brief or applying it during shortlisting does not resolve the underlying discrimination issue. The recruitment process needs to be lawful throughout.

For international roles, establish the relevant jurisdiction before adapting a British template. Northern Ireland also requires a separate assessment under its own legislation and guidance; its Equality Commission provides specific advice on recruitment advertising and occupational requirements.

The best starting point is an advertisement centred on the work and the evidence needed to perform it. Where a restriction is necessary and legally justified, make it precise, explain it and retain the supporting assessment. Where the aim is better representation, use lawful positive action and wider access to the opportunity.