Trans participation in women’s pool competitions
The County Court has dismissed a claim of gender reassignment discrimination brought by a trans woman excluded from women’s county pool competitions, applying the Supreme Court’s recent decision in For Women Scotland.
Background
Ms Haynes, an elite pool player and a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate, had previously competed for Kent’s women’s county A team. In 2023, the English Blackball Pool Federation (EBPF) amended its rules to state that only those “born female” could play in women’s competitions. This change excluded Ms Haynes. She brought proceedings, alleging direct discrimination because of gender reassignment under the Equality Act 2010.
The EBPF defended the claim, and shortly after the trial took place, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the For Women Scotland case. The Court invited further submissions from the parties on the effect of that judgment on Ms Haynes' case, and the claim has now been dismissed.
The court’s decision
The County Court held that the claim failed in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in For Women Scotland, which established that references to 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 mean biological sex, not acquired sex under a gender recognition certificate. The judge concluded that Ms Haynes was excluded because she is biologically male, meaning the issue was one of sex discrimination. As she had only pleaded gender reassignment discrimination, the claim could not succeed.
The court stressed that this conclusion did not render the protected characteristic of gender reassignment 'worthless'. In this case, the defendants had not excluded Ms Haynes because of her gender reassignment. Her claim therefore failed on its facts, but this would not prevent other types of gender reassignment claims in future; for example, where an individual is dismissed because of their trans status.
Ms Haynes also argued that the court should compare her treatment with that of a biological female living as a woman, who would not have been excluded from the competition. The judge rejected this approach, explaining that differences of sex are always legally relevant. The correct comparison had to be with someone of the same biological sex as Ms Haynes. Anyone of the same biological sex as Ms Haynes would also have been excluded from the women's team, meaning the claim could not succeed.
The court also dismissed Ms Haynes’ human rights arguments. She had argued that applying For Women Scotland breached her rights under Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) ECHR and asked the court either to distinguish the decision or allow an appeal. The County Court concluded it was bound by Supreme Court authority, and that any appeal based on incompatibility with the Convention would have no real prospect of success.
Finally, the judge found that English eight-ball pool is a “gender-affected activity” under the Equality Act. Differences in strength and reach between men and women were relevant to the break shot and other aspects of play. Exclusion of trans women could therefore be justified as necessary to secure fair competition.
Learning points for employers
Although only a first instance decision, this is the first case to apply For Women Scotland to a claim of gender reassignment discrimination. It confirms that the proper comparison for a trans woman is with a person born male, which makes these claims difficult where the complaint is a failure to recognise an acquired gender, even with a gender recognition certificate.