Hi Raiela

Yes, this would meet the Occupational requirement - see some guidance on the EHRC website, pages 15-16 in the document below cover this type of situation

www.equalityhumanrights.com/.../what_equality_law_means_for_you_as_an_employer_-_recruitment.pdf

Joe

In reply to Joe :

thank you

In reply to Raiela:

Just supplementary to Joe's answer, although this sounds like a pretty obvious case for a Genuine Occupational Requirement, you should be sure to conduct a risk assessment on the role identifying the use of a GOR as a reasonable step to mitigate specific risks, consider what room for flexibility may apply to this GOR (i.e. is it definitely a GOR?) and be explicit in your advertising and supporting material that the female sex of candidates has been identified as a GOR.

Part of the risk lies in the fact that sex-based GORs in job adverts can be a flag to people looking for a fight in this politically-sensitive area. For example, if you say that you will only consider female candidates, do you mean "candidates assigned female at birth", "candidates who identify as female" or "candidates who appear female under reasonable examination"? What would your reaction be to applications from trans men, trans women or people who present themselves in a non-binary way or in a gender-fluid way?

It's easy to fall down the rabbit hole when it comes to sex and GOR but, to an extent, that's the point.

If I'm honest, I would probably discourage the use of GOR terms for a role like this. Statistically, your candidates are almost certain to skew towards female applicants anyway for cultural and social reasons. If the gender of the student were male, would you be requiring a GOR that the candidates be male?

In reply to Robey:

Hi Robey,
Thank you for your advise, after discussing and reading on the the guidance, we will not be advertising for a female only role as potentially this can add more risks.

Kind Regards
Raiela