Gender reassignment discrimination in sports clubs, associations and schools

An important case came before the courts in August 2025 which will have implications for employers, sports clubs, schools and other organisations providing services to the public. While we await the full Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) guidance on transgender issues following the Supreme Court’s decision in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers earlier in 2025,  this latest decision is likely to have a profound effect.

In the first case dealing with gender reassignment discrimination since the Supreme Court’s ruling, a court found no gender reassignment discrimination where a sporting association refused to allow a biological male with a gender recognition certificate to compete in a women’s sport tournament.

The effect of the case of For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers

This landmark UKSC ruling clarifies that gender assignment based rights and protections under the Equality Act are grounded in biological sex, not legal gender recognition. It sets limits on devolved government competence over equal opportunities and forces organisations to realign practices accordingly – while preserving anti-discrimination protections for transgender persons under the Equality Act 2010.

The Supreme Court unanimously laid down the principle that under the Equality Act 2010, the terms ‘woman’ ‘man’ and ‘sex’ refer to biological sex not legal gender acquired through a gender recognition certificate. It ruled that the Scottish government’s guidance including transgender people with a gender recognition certificate in the definition of a ‘woman’ for the purposes of diversity statistics was unlawful and that gender recognition certificates does not override the legal meaning of ‘sex’ (biologically speaking) within the Equality Act 2010.

The Supreme Court decision seemed to mean that services and facilities such as sport could be segregated by biological sex alone and organisations would be acting lawfully if they implemented that policy.

Haynes v The English Blackball Pool Federation

Three eight-ball pool associations announced that their women’s tournaments would be for biological (born) females only which was a reversal of the past policy of self ID. The policies were changed due to the fact that a biological man but trans-woman, Harriet Haynes, was regularly winning women’s events and legal action was threatened. The claimant threatened to bring legal action against the pool associations but the England Blackball Pool Federation refused to change its policy. The claimant, who had a gender recognition certificate, alleged the exclusion amounted to direct discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment under the Equality Act 2010 and brought a claim in the court.

The court found no discrimination had taken place. Following the Supreme Court decision in For Women Scotland, ‘sex’ within the definition of the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex. The correct comparator for the claimant was therefore a man without the protected characteristic of gender reassignment who would also have been excluded from the pool tournament’s female competition. The court confirmed that pool is a ‘gender affected activity’ and that the average man would have an advantage over the average woman particularly in regard to some cue shots where power was an advantage (such as the initial ‘break’ at the start of each match) and length of reach and it was therefore lawful to organise it in such a way as to separate male and female competitors in order to secure fair competition. The sporting association was providing a service in organising a pool tournament and treating men and women differently in that provision, which was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of ‘promoting the integrity of the game through fairness of competition and diversity’ by promoting women’s sport.

Interestingly, the other two pool associations – the Ultimate Pool Group and World Eight Ball Federation which allowed self ID, have since changed their policies and agreed that pool is a gender affected activity and would in future restrict men from competing in the women’s category. This was after a group of female players threatened to bring a discrimination claim against the organisations on the basis that the admission of biological males into women’s categories would put women at a disadvantage.

Many sports are likely to be ‘gender affected activities’ under the auspices of the Equality Act 2010 and therefore it is important that sports clubs, associations and schools take note of the decisions in Haynes and in For Women Scotland. If they do not, they may leave themselves open to having to defend expensive claims in the courts.

However, there is an important post-script to this Haynes case. Had Harriet brought a sex discrimination claim instead of a claim based on gender re-assignment, there might have been argument that she was discriminated against on grounds of her sex.

Next steps for employers

The case of Haynes further illustrates the profound effect which the For Women Scotland case will have on employers and other organisations offering services to the public or to members. Here are some of the things your organisation should be doing as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in For Women Scotland:

• Update policies, handbooks and communications to reflect the legal position on gender reassignment
• Ensure you have single sex spaces where appropriate and these are only available by biological sex
• Conduct training to clarify the legal position with staff
• Make sure that where appropriate sport competitions separated by sex are segregated by biological sex and not by gender recognition
• Where gender reassignment focussed policies are designed to increase representation, these refer to women and females on the basis of biological sex

If you require detailed advice or assistance updating policies, please do get in touch with the Employment team at Thomson Snell & Passmore.