A recent court case (Haynes v The English Blackball Pool Association [2025] involving a transgender female pool player has provided crucial legal clarity on transgender rights in sport, with wide-reaching implications extending far beyond sporting contexts.
For businesses and service providers, this landmark decision establishes important principles for managing single-sex provisions, equality obligations, and transgender rights in the evolving legal landscape.
The Evolving Legal Framework
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has submitted an updated Code of Practice to the Government following a 2025 Supreme Court ruling that definitively clarified how sex and gender reassignment operate as legally distinct protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.
This development represents years of legal uncertainty finally reaching resolution. Since the Act’s introduction in 2010, organisations have struggled with apparently conflicting provisions around sex-based rights and gender reassignment protections. The Supreme Court’s intervention, now being applied practically through the Haynes case, provides the clarity businesses have desperately needed.
The forthcoming Code of Practice will offer detailed guidance, but this Court decision gives us the first practical application of these legal principles in a real-world context.
Case background
The case of Haynes v The English Blackball Pool Association [2025], involved a professional transgender female pool player holding a Gender Recognition Certificate who had previously competed successfully on the English Blackball Pool Federation’s Kent women’s team. In August 2023, the EBPF changed its rules to restrict female competitions to “biologically female” participants only.
While she remained eligible for men’s competitions, the player felt this exclusion constituted direct discrimination based on her gender reassignment status under the Equality Act 2010. The case became a test of how Courts would apply the new Supreme Court guidance to practical equality challenges.
The legal arguments were sophisticated. The claimant argued that the exclusion was inherently discriminatory because it specifically targeted her transgender status – she would have continued competing in women’s events but for her gender reassignment history. The Federation countered that their policy was based on biological sex considerations applicable to all participants, regardless of transgender status.
The Court’s Decision
The Court dismissed the claim, but the reasoning proves crucial for all organisations managing similar issues. The judgment established several key principles:
Biological sex versus transgender status distinction: The Court ruled the player was excluded based on biological sex (being born male), not because she was transgender. Any biological male would face identical exclusion from women’s competitions, regardless of transgender status or gender identity.
Discrimination definition refinement: Since the claimant brought her claim specifically for gender reassignment discrimination (not sex discrimination), she needed to prove different treatment based on her transgender status. The Court found no such different treatment – she was treated identically to any other biological male.
Legal burden implications: This distinction places significant importance on how discrimination claims are framed legally. The same facts might support different claims with different outcomes depending on which protected characteristic is cited.
The ‘Gender-Affected Activity’ Analysis
Beyond the core discrimination question, the Court examined whether pool qualified as a “gender-affected activity” under equality law – an analysis with broader implications for many sports and activities.
Despite pool’s reputation as primarily skill-based rather than strength-dependent, the Court identified several factors where biological male characteristics provide competitive advantages:
Physical reach and leverage affect shot selection and table coverage, particularly important in professional competition where marginal advantages become significant.
Break shot power can influence game control, with stronger breaks creating better scoring opportunities and defensive positions.
Sustained concentration and physical endurance during long matches, where subtle physiological differences might affect performance consistency.
This analysis suggests that even activities traditionally considered purely skill-based may justify sex-separated categories when competitive fairness is at stake. The implications extend beyond traditional sports to potentially cover gaming, chess, darts, and other competitive activities.
Business and Service Provider Implications
Whilst we are still waiting for EHRC’S Code of Practice, this decision provides some practical guidance for organisations across numerous sectors:
- Sports and recreation providers can now implement sex-based policies with greater confidence, provided they’re genuinely based on biological sex considerations rather than targeting transgender status.
- Fitness and leisure facilities have clearer frameworks for managing changing rooms, single-sex classes, and competitive events while balancing competing equality obligations.
- Educational institutions can develop more robust policies for sports participation, accommodation arrangements, and single-sex facilities.
- Professional associations in competitive fields can establish clearer participation criteria based on biological sex where relevant to competitive integrity.
Practical Implementation Guidance
- Policy development requires careful legal drafting that focuses on biological sex requirements rather than transgender exclusion. The distinction is crucial for legal defensibility.
- Staff training must help employees understand and apply these legal distinctions consistently, avoiding discrimination while managing practical operational challenges.
- Decision documentation should record the genuine reasons for sex-based policies, demonstrating they’re based on legitimate considerations rather than discriminatory intent.
- Reasonable adjustments may still be required in many contexts – this ruling doesn’t eliminate all obligations to accommodate transgender individuals.
- Regular legal review ensures policies remain current as the law continues evolving through additional cases and updated guidance.
- Continue to provide support to affected employees and discuss any changes in advance.
The Broader Equality Context
While this case provides important clarification, it operates within the broader equality framework that still requires organisations to avoid discrimination and promote inclusive environments. The decision doesn’t eliminate transgender rights – it clarifies the boundaries between different protected characteristics.
Organisations must balance sex-based provisions with their continuing obligations to treat transgender individuals with dignity and respect, avoiding harassment or victimisation based on gender reassignment status.
Comment
This case represents the beginning, not the end, of how Courts will apply these principles across different contexts. We can expect further challenges as organisations test the boundaries of this new legal clarity.
The updated EHRC Code of Practice, when published, will provide additional detailed guidance on implementation. However, early legal advice remains crucial for organisations facing immediate policy decisions.
Commercial considerations remain paramount: while legal clarity is welcome, organisations must balance compliance obligations with operational practicality and inclusive workplace cultures.
Expert Legal Support
Equality law operates at the intersection of legal compliance, operational necessity, and social responsibility. Our employment and equality law specialists help businesses develop practical, legally compliant approaches that work in real-world contexts.
Whether you’re developing new policies, reviewing existing practices, or facing specific equality challenges, specialist legal advice ensures you navigate these complex issues effectively while protecting your organisation’s interests.
Get In Touch
Debbie Coyne is a Partner and head of our employment law team. Debbie has extensive experience advising employers on all aspects of employment law, including both contentious and non-contentious matters.
At Slater Heelis, we advise employers and employees on all aspects of workplace harassment, including the impact of recent legislative changes. Whether you’re reviewing your internal policies, delivering staff training, or managing a sensitive issue, we provide clear, practical guidance tailored to your situation.
If you’re concerned about your organisation’s responsibilities under the new prevention duty or need advice on managing risk in extended work settings, contact our employment law specialists today on 0330 111 3131 or via our online enquiry form.
