Transgender pool player loses discrimination case over exclusion from women’s competition

A county court has ruled that excluding a transgender woman from a women’s sports competition was not discriminatory.

In Haynes v The English Blackball Pool Association (“the Association”), the court found that the Association’s decision to exclude transgender women from competing in female categories was not discrimination.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers that ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 (“the Act”) refers to biological sex. The judgment found that a ‘woman’ does not include transgender women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC). Read our full note on this case here.

While both sex and gender reassignment are protected characteristics under the Act, the Supreme Court interpreted the meaning of sex to apply to biological sex only.

The Haynes case is the first decision on transgender discrimination since the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Background on Haynes v The English Blackball Pool Association

In 2023, the Association changed its rules to allow only those born female to play in its female competitions and teams. As a result, Harriet Haynes, a transgender woman with a GRC, was prevented from playing for the team she was previously part of.

Haynes argued that her exclusion from the team amounted to direct discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment, in breach of the Act. She brought a claim against the Association for refusing to allow her to compete in women’s events.

The decision

The County Court found that, in the light of the decision in For Women Scotland, Haynes’ claim failed; there was no discrimination against her as a result of a protected characteristic.

Under the Act, direct discrimination occurs when “a person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others”. In this case, the exclusion was based on biological sex as opposed to Haynes’ gender reassignment, which is permitted in accordance with the Supreme Court decision.

This judgment confirms that organisers of sporting events may lawfully exclude transgender men and women from competing in male and female categories based on their biological sex, where necessary for fair competition.

Key takeaways for schools

This case highlights the practical impact of the Supreme Court decision in For Women Scotland. While children and young people under 18 cannot legally obtain a GRC, schools must still consider the needs of their staff and pupils when making decisions involving sex, gender and gender reassignment.

Public reaction to both the Supreme Court decision and the Haynes v The English Blackball Pool Association case is likely to continue to create tricky situations where schools will need to balance the rights and wishes of transgender pupils and staff.

Schools should take a cautious approach to gender issues and maintain good communication with those affected. Risk assessments should be carried out and schools should try to accommodate transgender pupils’ wishes – for example, by providing gender-neutral toilets or alternative changing areas or times, where possible. The same approach should be taken for members of staff, particularly in roles involving safeguarding and intimate care to pupils, where it may be lawful to designate roles by biological sex.

Schools should remain mindful that the Act still prohibits discrimination and victimisation of pupils and members of staff who are protected under gender reassignment, and any issues should be treated with sensitivity.

We expect the Department of Education to publish final guidance for schools on gender questioning later this year – we’ll keep you updated.