The intersection of equality law and competitive sport continues to generate complex legal questions, particularly regarding the participation of transgender athletes. The recent County Court case of Haynes v English Blackball Pool Federation (EBPF) offers valuable insights for sports organisations and employers grappling with these issues, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in For Women Scotland (FWS) and the interpretation of the sports exemption under section 195 of the Equality Act 2010.
Whilst this case is not directly employment related, it is particularly interesting as it is the first decision following the landmark FWS Supreme Court ruling that the definitions of ‘woman’, ‘man’ and ‘sex’ for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex. This case may therefore influence how tribunals interpret the Equality Act going forward.
Legal Framework
The Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) generally prohibits discrimination by service providers, including on the basis of sex. There are some exemptions to this, for example in the context of sports where the government determined that discrimination on the basis of sex may be required for reasons related to safety or fairness. This exemption can be found in s. 195(3) of the EqA 2010, which states:
“A gender-affected activity is a sport, game or other activity of a competitive nature in circumstances in which the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one sex would put them at a disadvantage compared to average persons of the other sex as competitors in events involving the activity.”
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in FWS, it was clarified that references to ‘sex’ in this context mean biological sex, not acquired gender under a gender recognition certificate.
Facts of the case
Ms Haynes, a highly skilled English pool player and a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate, played for Kent’s women’s county A team. In August 2023, the EBPF amended its rules to restrict female competitions to those born female, effective December 2023. This change excluded Ms Haynes from her preferred team, prompting her to allege direct discrimination based on gender reassignment.
The case was heard in April 2025, shortly after the Supreme Court’s FWS judgment. Following that judgment, the court found that the “sex” in the EqA 2010 means biological sex and therefore Ms Haynes must be regarded as male. The reason Ms Haynes was excluded from playing for the women’s team was because her biological sex is male and the court therefore found that the exclusion was based on sex, not gender reassignment. As Ms Haynes had only pleaded gender reassignment discrimination, her claim was dismissed. The Court also considered comparators and found that, in view of comments made in FWS, the correct comparator here was someone of the same sex without the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, which would have been a biological man. As a biological man would have also been excluded from competing for the women’s team, there was no less favourable treatment on the grounds of gender reassignment.
Notwithstanding the fact that the claim fell at the first hurdle, the court did go on to consider whether pool qualified as a gender affected activity and whether excluding trans women from female categories was necessary for fair competition.
What Makes an Activity ‘Gender Affected’?
There has been limited judicial guidance on what constitutes a gender affected activity previously.
In Haynes, the Judge determined that even a minor physical advantage for biological men suffices to classify a sport as gender affected. The assessment must compare reasonably experienced individuals of each sex, not just novices or elite athletes.
Both sides presented expert evidence. The experts agreed that the break shot is pivotal in pool. The Claimant’s expert relied on computer simulations to argue that men do not have a significant advantage, while the Defendant’s expert drew on extensive practical experience, which the Judge found more persuasive. The biology experts concurred that men typically have longer arms, larger hands, and longer fingers, but disagreed on whether these traits confer a competitive edge. Ultimately, the Judge concluded that women’s lesser strength and reach place them at a disadvantage in English eight-ball pool, making it a gender affected activity.
Implications
Haynes v English Blackball Pool Federation marks a significant development for sports bodies seeking to balance inclusivity and fair competition. While its precedential value is limited, the judgment clarifies the application of the sports exemption under the Equality Act 2010 and offers a practical framework for assessing gender affected activities. Sports organisations and other bodies who carry out gender affected activities should ensure their policies are evidence-based and consider both legal requirements and the realities of competitive fairness.