Rugby boss’ job uncertain: Implications of a sexist social media post

Neath Rugby club have come under fire for using the slogan “definitely NOT FOR GIRLS” to advertise and market an upcoming fixture. It was accompanied by a promotional graphic with text such as “brutal, old school, Friday night rugby” where “bravehearts step up.”

As soon as the post reached social media, there was public outrage in response, with Labour MP for Gower, Tonia Antoniazzi, wanting to see the post “taken down with an apology” and regarding it as “disappointing”, and former Wales rugby union captain, Siwan Lillicrap, saying it was “shameful and disgraceful”. Matty Young, the club’s owner and author of the post, told the BBC that girls at the club were furious, which all led to the post being taken down – and rightly so. The club subsequently apologised for the post and the offence it caused but sought to justify it, claiming it was meant to prompt discussion about the casual misogyny that still exists in parts of rugby.

However, what is not clear is the future of Matty Young and whether he can now stay with the club; he states his position is uncertain. In these situations, you frequently see those responsible stepping down, but could the club take action against him for ultimately being responsible for the post?

Sexist comments - potential for claims from colleagues

One issue the club may have faced is claims from others, employed by the club, of harassment related to sex. Sex harassment occurs where:

• ‘A’ engages in unwanted conduct related to sex; and
• The conduct has the purpose or effect of either violating ‘B's’ dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for ‘B’.

In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to above, each of the following must be taken into account:

• ‘B's’ perception
• The other circumstances of the case
• Whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.

Related to sex

The post could constitute unwanted conduct, and it does not matter that it was an isolated incident, as a one-off incident can be classed as unwanted conduct. The conduct here is related to sex because of the form it takes, i.e., it is a sexist comment or joke that colleagues (regardless of their gender) could find offensive, and there is no requirement for the comment to be directed at anyone in particular… stating that the match is “not for girls” is a fairly straightforward sexist comment but the other language in the graphic could also potentially be viewed as sexist, as “brutal, old school Friday night rugby” could potentially be viewed as referring to a time when girls did not commonly play rugby, or “bravehearts step up” could suggest that men are going above and beyond for this game.

Purpose of effect

Moving on to “purpose or effect”, the test is, if the conduct has the purpose of either violating ‘B’s’ dignity or of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading or offensive environment for ‘B’, then nothing further is required – this is harassment.

It may not be the case that intention could be established here; therefore, you would turn to the question of whether the conduct had that effect. To this end you have to consider whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect. It could be the case here that these comments had the effect of creating an offensive environment for a colleague, as they are implying that girls are not up the task of playing rugby at a certain level or the old school days of men’s rugby were better. Another factor to consider would perhaps be the apology and the justification of the reason behind the post, but it is likely that the damage has already been done here and could be seen as back peddling.

In summary, if complaints of this nature have been received from colleagues, then the club could take disciplinary action against Matty Young up to and including his dismissal for conduct reasons.

Other forms of action – reputational risk for the club

If the club decided not to pursue a conduct route, then another option would be dismissal for ‘some other substantial reason’. Employers may consider that an employee’s conduct is sufficiently serious to justify a dismissal on the basis that continuing to employ them could significantly damage their reputation. However, this is a very high hurdle for employers and, in this case, with removing the post immediately and justifying the reason it was posted, the club may not be successful is showing that continuing to employ Matty Young would place the club’s future reputation at risk.

Contact us

For information on how we can support you with employment law matters, please contact a member of our Employment team or submit an enquiry form, below.