The Australian Human Rights Commission has welcomed today’s decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Giggle v Tickle saying it provides important clarity about the protections against gender identity discrimination.
The Court held that Giggle for Girls and its CEO Sall Grover unlawfully discriminated against trans woman Roxanne Tickle. Tickle won her case of discrimination in 2024 after being refused access to the Giggle social media app by its founder, Sall Grover. The case followed a complaint to the Commission in 2021 that was unable to be resolved by conciliation.
The original court ruling had found one act of indirect discrimination against Tickle on the basis of her gender identity. The appellants then sought to overturn that ruling, while Tickle launched a cross-appeal to argue she was directly discriminated against because of her gender identity and should be paid more compensation.
In dismissing the appeal today, and allowing the cross-appeal, the Court found there were two instances of direct discrimination and doubled the damages awarded to Tickle to $20,000, plus limited legal costs.
The Court’s decision provides guidance on the meaning of the 2013 changes to the Sex Discrimination Act (SDA) that made it unlawful to discriminate against a person based on sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
The Court ruled that both Giggle for Girls and Ms Grover excluded Ms Tickle from the Giggle platform, and refused to readmit her, because of Ms Tickle’s gender-related appearance. This was direct discrimination on the ground of her gender identity.
The Court also provided guidance about what amounts to a ‘special measure’ under the SDA. It said the SDA did not create a hierarchy of rights or permit discrimination on one ground on the basis that a measure is aimed at assisting people who are discriminated against on another ground.
Sex Discrimination Commissioner Dr Anna Cody assisted in the appeal as amicus curiae, or friend to the court, an impartial role to help the Court interpret the SDA. Commissioner Cody did not appear for either side in the proceedings and was not a party to the proceedings.
Dr Cody said the case had raised complex and sometimes contested legal and public policy issues, and that the judgment provides important guidance on the operation of Australia’s anti-discrimination law.
“This case has prompted significant discussion about how our discrimination laws apply in practice,” she said. “We welcome the Court’s careful consideration and the clarity the judgment provides.
“The Sex Discrimination Act is intended to ensure all people are treated equally and can participate fully in public life. These protections extend to all women, including transgender women.”
Dr Cody said focus must remain on the most pressing drivers of harm affecting gender equality Australia.
“Our collective efforts must remain on improving safety and advancing equality for all women.”
Commission President Hugh de Kretser said: “Everyone should be able to participate equally in our society – at work, in education, housing and beyond. While progress has been made, many people still face discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
“The Sex Discrimination Act provides vital protection against this harm. We welcome the Federal Court’s interpretation of this protection in its decision”.
