Background:
The Complainant alleged gender discrimination regarding her eligibility for membership in the Respondent association, claiming exclusion based on her student status and part-time work, contrary to the Equal Status Act 2000. She attempted to apply in August and September 2023 but encountered obstacles, unclear criteria, and responses that she deemed dismissive and gendered, including instructions to speak with her tutor. The association's membership, predominantly male, had requirements that the complainant argued indirectly discriminated against women, particularly the expectation of full-time work, which disproportionately impacts female photographers balancing education or caregiving. In evidence, the Complainant detailed her difficulties in navigating the membership process and asserted that she felt humiliated and excluded, particularly as she was told she couldn’t apply because she did not work full-time. She argued that full-time criteria disproportionately disadvantaged women, who are more likely to work part-time, and noted that the respondent’s male-dominated membership reinforced gender imbalance. Despite being sent an application form, she refrained from applying, feeling her prior interactions indicated she would be deemed ineligible. The Complainant contended that the association should take positive action to promote gender balance in photojournalism.

The Respondent argued that it was not subject to the Equal Status Act 2000, as it does not provide a service or goods, and claimed the Complainant lacked standing (locus standi) to pursue the case. The Respondent noted that the Complainant never formally applied for membership, rendering the discrimination claim baseless. It pointed out that over a 13-day period in August and September 2023, it had responded to numerous emails from the Complainant and engaged in a phone call, with no mention of gender or evidence of discriminatory conduct. The Respondent, an association for full-time press photographers, emphasised its membership criteria: applicants must be primarily press photographers whose journalistic income exceeds 80% of total earnings. It argued these requirements were gender-neutral.

Finding:
The Adjudicating Officer found legal framework defines discrimination as less favourable treatment based on protected grounds, including gender. Direct discrimination occurs when a person is treated less favourably than a comparable person, while indirect discrimination refers to a seemingly neutral provision that disproportionately affects a protected group. In her attempt to join the Respondent association, the Complainant felt the application process was dismissive and gendered, pointing to comments suggesting she consult her tutor. She argued that full-time criteria impacted women disproportionately due to caregiving and educational commitments. The Respondent argued that it did not discriminate and that membership criteria were gender-neutral, requiring only that 80% of income derive from press photography without a mandate for full-time hours. The Adjudicator found no evidence of direct or indirect discrimination. The association’s criteria did not explicitly or implicitly exclude part-time workers or females, and no prima facie case of discrimination was established. Consequently, the claims were dismissed as unfounded.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

In light of the foregoing, employers and membership-based organisations should take steps to ensure their policies and practices do not inadvertently create barriers for particular groups, which may lead to discrimination claims under the Equal Status Act 2000.

• Clear and Inclusive Criteria: Membership or employment criteria should be unambiguous and accessible to all potential applicants. Avoid vague terms like “full-time” without clarifying what it entails, as unclear criteria can lead to misunderstandings and perceived exclusion.
• Regular Policy Reviews for Indirect Discrimination: Assess policies to ensure they don’t indirectly disadvantage certain groups, such as requiring full-time work, which might disproportionately impact women balancing caregiving or education. Ensure that criteria are justifiable, necessary, and promote inclusivity.
• Respectful and Professional Communication: Maintain a professional tone in all interactions. Avoid language that could be interpreted as dismissive or biased, as unintentional slights can lead to claims of perceived discrimination.
• Encouraging Diversity: Consider proactive steps to address gender imbalances, especially in male-dominated fields. Supporting a diverse membership or workforce fosters inclusivity and reduces the risk of discrimination claims.

The full case can be found here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2024/october/adj-00050540.html