If your organisation manages competitive events or provides single-sex facilities, how can you balance inclusion with fairness, without falling foul of discrimination law?
This dilemma is no longer theoretical. In Haynes v Thomson and others [2025] EWCC 50, the County Court dismissed a transgender woman’s claim of direct gender reassignment discrimination after she was excluded from a women’s pool competition.
The ruling shaped by the Supreme Court’s recent clarification that ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 (EqA) refers to biological sex has significant implications for employers, governing bodies and service providers. Whether it is sports tournaments, workplace clubs or gender-specific services, HR leaders need to understand the fine line between lawful exclusion and unlawful discrimination.
What happened?
The case concerned Ms Haynes, an English eight-ball pool player and transgender woman with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). Until 2023, she competed for the English Blackball Pool Federation (EBPF) women’s county A team.
That year, the EBPF changed its rules: women’s competitions were restricted to players born female. As a result, Haynes was excluded and brought a claim alleging direct gender reassignment discrimination under the EqA 2010.
She argued that her exclusion was unlawful because she had transitioned, held a GRC, and lived as a woman. The EBPF defended its position, saying the decision was about the fairness of competition, not her transition.
This scenario mirrors challenges employers face daily: deciding whether a transgender employee may access single-sex spaces, be included in gender-specific programmes, or participate in events aimed at supporting women.
What did the court decide and why?
The County Court, bound by the Supreme Court’s For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16, ruled that under the EqA, ‘sex’ means biological sex. This meant that, legally, Haynes was to be treated as male for the purposes of the EqA even though she had a GRC.
The EBPF excluded Haynes from the women’s competition because her biological sex was male, and not because of gender reassignment. The EBPF’s rules did not prevent a transgender man from competing in the women’s competition. This constituted sex discrimination rather than gender reassignment discrimination. Since the claimant had only pleaded gender reassignment discrimination, her claim had to be dismissed. There was no basis consistent with For Women Scotland on which it could succeed.
The judge also considered wider issues:
Gender-affected activity (EqA s.195): pool was found to be a ‘gender-affected activity’ because men generally have advantages in strength and reach. Excluding transgender women was deemed necessary to ensure fair competition.
Service provision (EqA s.29): the EBPF was a service provider, but the exclusion was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim: fairness and the encouragement of female participation.
Human rights arguments (European Court of Human Rights): the court rejected claims that the ruling breached rights to privacy and non-discrimination. It found it was bound by Supreme Court authority.
This ruling reflects a broader legal shift. According to Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) guidance, single-sex service providers may lawfully exclude transgender people in some cases if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, although each case is fact-specific.
What should you do?
This case underscores the importance of meticulous policy design and effective risk management. For employers and service providers, the lessons are clear:
Review policies on single-sex spaces and activities
Ensure policies reflect the current legal position that sex means biological sex under the EqA. Build a justification framework for any exclusions.
Avoid relying on a single protected characteristic
As this case shows, claims may fail if framed too narrowly. HR and legal teams should be alert to the overlap between sex discrimination, gender reassignment and harassment.
Train managers and staff.
Front-line decision-makers need clarity on when exclusion may be lawful and when it risks discrimination. Training should cover the EqA exceptions for sport, service provision and single-sex spaces.
Document proportionality
Where you apply restrictions (for example, sports teams, gender-specific facilities), record why alternatives (such as adjusted criteria or mixed categories) would not achieve fairness or safety. This will be vital evidence if challenged.
Monitor forthcoming EHRC guidance
The EHRC is updating its Code of Practice on services to reflect For Women Scotland. Employers should be ready to update policies and communications once updated official guidance is published.
Conclusion
This judgment underlines a key message: inclusion policies must be lawful, evidence-based and clearly documented. Organisations that anticipate these dilemmas and prepare policies that are aligned with both the Equality Act and evolving case law will be best placed to balance fairness, manage risk and support staff with confidence
