The Skorts Debacle

Camogie players are not permitted to wear shorts in matches, to the major opposition of many players, who have become increasingly defiant in their protests against the rule. Our Sports Law team examines how the requirement to wear uniforms may be discriminatory in certain situations.

What you need to know

• Gender equality in sport has been a major discussion point in recent years.
• The skorts issue being faced by Ireland’s Camogie Association is a reminder of the equality concerns women may face in sport.
• The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) is the body responsible for deciding on discrimination claims brought by individuals regarding both employment and access to services/goods.
• We explore the gender specific requirements that have been examined by the WRC and have proven to be in breach of anti-discrimination legislation.

Requiring a person to wear a specific item of clothing or uniform will always attract discussion and sometimes controversy. It is especially problematic when the objective justification grounding the requirement is not immediately clear. This has happened in the case of Ireland’s Camogie Association and its rules on a player’s attire in competitive matches. The current rules governing playing gear for camogie state that it must include a skirt, skort - essentially a pair of shorts with an overlapping fabric panel which resembles a skirt, or a divided skirt. Their hurling counterparts, governed by the GAA, have no such rule, and neither do their football colleagues.

A question of equality

It raises the question of equality in sports and whether the governing bodies are doing enough to level the playing field. So, what is the role of the WRC in this matter in possibly providing a path to resolution? We examine the law surrounding uniforms and clothing requirements.

Discrimination is prohibited under nine specific grounds, including:

1. Gender
2. Marital status
3. Family status
4. Age
5. Disability
6. Sexual orientation
7. Race
8. Religion, and
9. Membership of the Traveller community

Discrimination on these grounds is not permitted in an employment context, nor in the provision of goods and services, accommodation and education.

Case law

The case of Conlon v Arcout Ltd t/a Sheldon Park Hotel and Leisure Club in 2008[1] is the most instructive and insightful case when considering this matter. It was held that the requirement for female employees to wear a skirt constituted discrimination on gender grounds.

The case of O’Byrne v Dunnes[2] is an interesting one. It concerned the dismissal of an employee for his violation of the dress code by his refusal to either wear a facemask at work or to shave off his beard. The employee claimed that these requirements were discriminatory based on gender. The Labour Court held that the requirement was imposed:

‘in a way that restricted his freedom to determine his own appearance to a significantly greater degree that it does in the case of women’.

The Court held that this constituted unfavourable treatment on grounds of gender.

Where does this type of case law leave the camogie players?

A recent WRC decision in June 2024 has confirmed that it is possible for members of sports organisations to bring a claim under the Equal Status Acts. In that particular case, the WRC found that the sports organisation had engaged in prohibited conduct by not affording the complainant reasonable accommodation for her disability. An award of €5,000 was made to the complainant. In addition, the WRC directed the respondent, the Ladies Gaelic Football Association (LGFA), to introduce an age dispensation policy for children with a disability in underage levels up to, and including, the Under-12 level.

This case is a timely reminder of the power of the WRC in determining issues of equality and its interaction with sports organisations. Not only was a financial award made, but the WRC used its power under the legislation to direct an amendment to the organisation’s policies.

The case law highlights the capability of the WRC in determining matters of discrimination in a wide range of settings. The case law has also shown that the WRC places emphasis of the freedom to determine one’s own appearance and has made strong determinations on matters relating to gender equality.

Key takeaways

The WRC has established a strong stance concerning discrimination on the grounds of gender. Employers and service providers should exercise caution when requiring an employee or a person to wear a specific uniform. All requirements should be evaluated on whether there is an objective basis grounding each rule.

For more information and expert advice around discrimination matters, please reach out to a member of our Sports Law or Employment Law & Benefits team.

The content of this article is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other advice.

[1] DEC–E2008–057

[2] [2004] ELR 96.