An Australian schoolgirl has lost a legal battle after complaining that she was being forced to wear a skirt to formal school occasions.
The student alleged gender discrimination and the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) dismissed her case.
The complaint from the girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons, centered on her being denied the right to wear pants on formal school occasions.
The student was represented by her parents and included a statement as part of her complaint that “it requires an extra level of thought about the way I move and sit, so as not to expose myself” every time she has to wear a skirt, the courier mail reported.
She added that “wearing skirts sexualizes female students because underwear can be exposed.”
The student argued that it was “unfair and sexist” to have to ask permission to wear pants or shorts to school events, “unlike male students.”
She provided examples of how the uniform policy was discriminatory, including being colder than male students during formal events in the winter and suffering a greater financial burden by having to purchase multiple sets of uniforms.
The school’s uniform policy, which also cannot be named, stipulates that girls ages 7 to 12 must wear skirts on “formal school occasions,” including “school outings or excursions, school ceremonies and events, class photographs, nights awards and external events”. events.”
A schoolgirl took her school to court alleging gender discrimination for having to wear skirts on formal school occasions (file image)
Male students may wear their usual uniform of shorts or pants.
The school had called the complaint “offensive and unfounded,” arguing that the policy is “consistent with community standards” and did not amount to “less favorable treatment” of female students.
The school also argued that “most female students chose to wear skirts for daily school wear, despite being able to wear other clothing.”
He said the uniform policy for formal occasions only applied to most students for “about eight hours a year”.
The school called the girl’s complaint “offensive” and “unfounded” and the case was dismissed by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (file image)
The student argued that “wearing a skirt sexualizes female students because underwear can be exposed.” The argument was rejected by the court (file image of a student)
QCAT member Jeremy Gordon said the student’s complaint under the Anti-Discrimination Act claimed she was subject to “negative gender stereotypes and gender power relations”.
Mr. Gordon rejected the student’s argument about the risk of the student’s underwear being exposed, because in “practice,” that risk of exposure is “reduced” since the school’s uniform policy “requires ‘The skirt touches the floor when kneeling, so the skirt is quite long’.
He added that the fact that there was “nothing” in the uniform policy that prevented girls from wearing shorts under skirts and that “considerably weakens the evidence of less favorable treatment on modesty grounds.”
In dismissing the complaint, Mr. Gordon ruled that there was “insufficient” evidence to demonstrate “less favorable treatment of the plaintiff as a student than of male students.”
“There was different treatment between the sexes, but the evidence does not show that the different treatment was unfavorable to the plaintiff,” Mr Gordon said.
