Transgender discrimination claim dismissed: Biological sex of a Trans woman central to exclusion from competition

This was the case of Haynes v Thomson [2025] EWCC 50.

Why this matters for employers and organisations

Although this case arose in the sporting context and is only at first instance, it is the first application of the For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers case in the County Court and shows the wider implications for how tribunals and courts could now interpret the Equality Act.

The claim

The EBPF had changed its rules in 2023 so that only those born female, or those of female sex, could play in female competitions. This meant Ms Haynes was no longer eligible to play for the Kent women’s county team despite holding a Gender Recognition Certificate

Ms Haynes alleged that this rule change and exclusion was unlawful gender reassignment discrimination under the Equality Act.

The EBPF denied this, saying her exclusion was due to her biological sex (being male). They also argued that pool is a “gender-affected activity” under the Equality Act and that the exclusion was necessary for fair competition (which renders separate male/female competitive sporting events lawful to ensure no disadvantage). 

The decision

The case was heard in April 2025. Just after the hearing, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the For Women Scotland case, ruling that the word “sex” in the Equality Act refers to biological sex.

The County Court applied that ruling and dismissed Ms Haynes’ claim. It found:

• Ms Haynes’ exclusion was because she was biologically male, not because she was transgender. She could only compare herself to those of the same sex ie male competitors and they also would have been excluded.
• As she had only claimed gender reassignment discrimination (and not sex discrimination), her claim failed. The rules did not prevent trans men from playing for a women’s team so there was sex discrimination although not claimed by Ms Haynes. 
• It was emphasised that this did not render the protected characteristic of gender reassignment “worthless”. Protection against discrimination remains strong in other contexts, such as dismissal because of gender reassignment.

Key points for employers and service providers

• Policies that distinguish between biological sex and gender identity will be scrutinised but may be justified in limited contexts such as competitive sport or single-sex services.
• By way of reminder for employers following the For Women Scotland case and reflected in the EHRC interim update as “woman” and “man” in the Equality Act mean biological sex, and trans individuals do not change sex even with a Gender Recognition Certificate:
  • Workplaces must provide sufficient single-sex toilets, changing, and washing facilities.
  • Trans women should not be permitted to use women’s single-sex facilities, and trans men should not be permitted to use men’s single-sex facilities, otherwise those facilities cease to be single-sex.
  • To avoid discrimination, employers should also ensure that trans employees have access to appropriate facilities.
• Whist the law is now clearer on definitions, the EHRC recognises the real challenge lies in implementing policy changes sensitively. Employers will need to balance rights, safety, and dignity across their workforce, and should engage in open, respectful dialogue when revising workplace policies.
• Employers should ensure policies and procedures are up to date, consistent, and consider if there is any potential for claims on an ongoing basis.
• The EHRC has confirmed it will be updating its Services Code of Practice and, later, its Employment Code of Practice. These updates were expected mid-2025 but as of September these remain under consultation. Employers and service providers should monitor this space for updates closely, as they will shape practical policies.
• One procedural point that has arisen from this case for individuals bringing claims against employers and service providers is the importance of considering and setting out all the possible claims that may be relevant and apply. The claim in Haynes failed because it was framed only as gender reassignment discrimination. Sex discrimination was recognised as an issue given the circumstances however it had not been claimed. 

How we can help

As demonstrated in the above case this is a fast-moving and sensitive area of law. Our Employment team can advise employers and employees alike on discrimination issues, policy drafting and risk management.

If you would like to discuss how this judgment may affect your organisation or any other employment law query, please contact us on 020 8290 0440.