Author
Author
In the case of For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16, the Supreme Court ruled that the terms “man”, “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 (EA) refer to biological sex only, and do not extend to certified sex. This means that a gender recognition certificate (GRC) does not change an individual’s “sex” under the EA. See our article here for further details.
In the months since the Supreme Court’s decision, we’re starting to see the practical implications of that judgment.
Haynes v The English Blackball Pool Association is the first case to apply the Supreme Court’s decision. In this case, the English Blackball Pool Association (EBPA) changed its rules so that only people who were born female would be permitted to play in its female competitions and teams. The Claimant, a transgender woman with a GRC, was therefore excluded from playing for the EBPF Kent women’s county A team. She alleged that this amounted to direct discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment.
The court found that no discrimination had taken place and dismissed the claim. The court determined that EBPA had treated the Claimant as a man (and therefore ineligible for the women’s competition) based on her biological sex and not her acquired gender or GRC. This was in accordance with the law as stated in For Women Scotland. The Court found that the correct comparator in the Claimant’s case must be of the same sex as the Claimant, and in light of For Women Scotland, that sex would be male for the purposes of the EA. As a man without the protected characteristic of gender reassignment would have been excluded from the female category, there was no difference in treatment.
While only a first instance decision, it has significant implications for workplace policies, inclusion strategies, and equality compliance. It clarifies that:
- The legal definition of “woman” and “man” in the EA now refers to biological sex. HR policies that rely solely on a GRC or self-identification for access to single-sex spaces, benefits, or roles may no longer be compliant.
- Where inclusion or diversity policies extend access based on gender identity, HR leaders should review whether those policies are aligned with the updated legal framework.
- Organisations may need to distinguish between inclusion objectives and legal compliance, particularly when managing single-sex facilities, services, or roles.
We are likely to see further litigation on this issue, particularly as there is significant confusion from organisations about what action can, or should, be taken following the For Women Scotland ruling. There is no doubt that organisations, and employers in particular, are desperate for official guidance on the practical implications of For Women Scotland.
On this point, it’s been reported that the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)’s updated Services Code of Practice (for services, public functions and associations) will not now be released until the end of August 2025. The EHRC had recently consulted on updates to its Services Code of Practice as a result of the For Women Scotland ruling (receiving 50,000 consultation responses). It issued an interim update (which was itself then updated) in the meantime, which has been subject to legal challenges. During the hearing in relation to one of those legal challenges, the EHRC reportedly confirmed that it expects to provide an updated Services Code of Practice by the end of August 2025. There is still no timeframe for when its Employment Code of Practice will be updated.
However, we have previously provided some suggestions on how to deal with the ruling here and would encourage organisations who would like help with this topic to reach out to Lynsey Blyth for further support.