i
Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2008
A. Decisions
1. Gender
1.1 Access to promotion – victimisation
Heather Lane v MBNA
1.2 Working Conditions/Victimisation and Victimisatory Dismissal
Emma Conlon v Sheldon Park Hotel
2. Race / Gender
2.1 Cross appeal to the Labour Court
Bozena Czerski v ICE Group
2.2 Working Conditions – Dismissal
Marilyn Ramos v Promowear/Caramba Ltd
3. Age
3.1 Access to Promotion
John Fagan v Office of the Revenue Commissioners
3.2 Colm Power v Blackrock College
B. Settlements
1. Race
1.1 Advertising
Equality Authority v Mayo Advertiser, Wind Farm Civils Ltd
1.2 Application for Registration to a Professional Body
A Complainant v A Professional Body
1.3 Conditions of Employment, Working Conditions
Mr Patrick Maphoso v Chubb Ireland Ltd
1.4. Access Employment
A Complainant v A Recruitment Company
2. Age
2.1 Appeal by An Post to the Labour Court
James Dunne v An Post
2.2 Advertising
Equality Authority v Niall Mellon Township Trust
2.3 Access to Promotion
A Teacher v A Secondary School
2.4 Dismissal
An Employee v A Company
3. Disability
3.1 Vocational Training
A Complainant v A Third Level College
3.2 Conditions of Employment, Failure to provide Reasonable Accommodation and subsequent Dismissal
An Employee v A Voluntary Body
3.3 Dismissal
An Individual v An Organisation
3.4 Access to Employment
A Complainant v A Prospective Employer
3.5 Disability – Working Conditions
A Female Employee v A Flower Shop
4. Sexual Orientation
4.1 Access to Promotion
Dr Eibhear Walshe v University College, Cork
4.2 Harassment – Victimisatory Dismissal
A Complainant v An Employer
5. Membership of the Traveller community
5.1 Access to Employment
A Complainant v A Hotel
6. Gender
6.1 Equal Pay
A Complainant v A State Organisation
6.2 Working Conditions and Victimisation
A Worker v A Retail Store
6.3 Dismissal
An Employee v An Employer
6.4 Advertising
Equality Authority v Nixer.ie and Virgin Vie At Home
7. Mixed Grounds
7.1 Gender and Race – Pregnancy Dismissal
An Employee v An Employer
7.2 Gender / Family Status - Conditions of Employment, Working Conditions
A Claimant v A Professional
Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2008
A. Decisions
1. Mixed Ground
1.1 Family Status and Gender - Provision of Service
Marie Flanagan Talbot v Killarney Cineplex
2. Age
2.1 Access to Financial Services
Phyllis Fahey v Ulster Bank
3. Disability
3.1 Accommodation - Private
Gabriel Moloney v Park House Hotel
3.2 Circuit Court Decision
Provision of Accommodation, Discrimination on grounds of Disability, Reasonable Accommodation, Time Limits – Appeal to Circuit Court from Decision of Equality Tribunal.
A City Council and a Claimant
Judgement of Judge Hunt, 15th April, 2008
4. Traveller
4.1 Provision of Accommodation
Christina Boland v Killarney Town Council
4.2 Amicus Curiae
High Court Decision
Lawrence & Ors. v Ballina Town Council, Mayo County Council and Ors.
B. Settlements
1. Age
1.1 Access to Grant
Maureen McNabola v Health Service Executive and Department of Health and Children
1.2 Insurance
Equality Authority v Mondial Assistance
1.3 Provision of Service
Brother Anthony White v Irish Car Rentals
2. Gender
2.1 Ms Lynda Sheridan v Irish Life Assurance Plc
3. Disability
3.1 Accommodation
A Claimant v A County Council
3.2 Access to Service
Elizabeth Golden v Just Beds Ltd
3.3 Access to Education
A mother on behalf of her son v A Special School and the Department of Education and Science
3.4 A Complainant v A Travel Agent and a Tour Operator
3.5 Provision of Service
Birte Schulz v Hapag Lloyd Express
3.6 Provision of Service – Education
A Complainant (on behalf of her daughter) v A National School, Department of Education and Science, National Council for Special Education (NCSE) and the National Education Welfare Board (NEWB)
Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003
District Court
A. Decisions
1. Membership of the Traveller Community
1.1 Paul Maughan v Michael Warde’s Public House
B. Settlements
1. Membership of the Traveller Community
1.1 Access to Public House / Restaurant
Three Members of a Traveller Family v A Public House
1.2 A Member of the Traveller community v A Public House
1.3 Mr JS v A Public House
1.4 Mr AC v A Public House
2. Disability
2.1 Mr B McG v A Public House
i
Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2008
A. Decisions
1. Gender
1.1 Access to promotion – victimisation
Heather Lane v MBNA
The complainant worked in the customer care section of MBNA. She became pregnant and while on maternity leave met with her manager to discuss applying for a promotion which had arisen. The manager discouraged her from applying for the promotion and told her a person with a degree was required although this was not a requirement in the job specification. The complainant withdrew her application but later found that the successful person did not hold a degree.
On return to work, the complainant found that her manager although giving her good assessments in monthly one to one meetings was not putting her forward for promotion or a pay rise. She complained numerous times but he fobbed her off with promises that the pay rise/promotion would be given soon. In a telephone call the night before she was due to return to work after her pregnancy, the complainant was assigned to work in the payroll section at the same grade although she had clearly stated that she was not happy with a lateral move. She arrived at work to find she had no desk, no phone and no real work. She complained but the situation continued for a number of weeks. She was again promised a pay review within six months but this did not happen.
When she had still not been promoted she escalated the matter. Various meetings with her manager, his supervisor and the complainant failed to resolve the issues and the complainant remained in her original position. Her complaints were not taken seriously and she was told the issue was a miscommunication.
In March 2005 the complainant announced that she was pregnant. The following month her head of department told her that her appraisal had been refused because of her attitude. The complainant was upset and left work with a stress related illness. After her manager left the company the complainant met with the head of department and HR and claimed that she had been treated unfairly because of her pregnancy.
The complainant did not subsequently receive a promotion/pay rise. Her complaint was investigated by the company who found that she had been mismanaged but not that she had been discriminated against because of her pregnancies. The Equality Authority subsequently wrote to the respondents on behalf of the complainant and a complaint was lodged with the Equality Tribunal. The complainant also claimed that the employer’s part of the PRSI contribution was not paid while she was on maternity leave. The company rectified this in respect of the complainant but not other employees.
In March 2007 the complainant was informed that she was to be made redundant from 31st May, 2007. She claimed that the company made no real efforts to redeploy her. She was subsequently asked to sign a redundancy agreement which would waive away her rights to make a complaint under the Employment Equality Acts. As the complainant had already lodged a complaint under the Acts she refused to sign the agreement and was paid a reduced redundancy package.
The Equality Officer found that the complainant had been discriminated against because of her pregnancies and that she had been victimised. He awarded her €17,000 in compensation for the discrimination, €33,000 (equivalent to one year’s salary) for victimisation and adverse treatment, and €6,315.84 being the difference between the basic and enhanced redundancy package. The total amount of the award was therefore €56,315.84.
1.2 Working Conditions/Victimisation and Victimisatory Dismissal
Emma Conlon v Sheldon Park Hotel
Ms Conlon began work in the Sheldon Park Hotel on 23rd November 2005 where she regularly worked two shifts per week. Prior to commencing her employment with the hotel, she was advised that the correct dress was a white shirt and black skirt but it was agreed that as she did not have a black skirt, she could wear black trousers for the time being. After three shifts her manager informed her that she must wear a black skirt or she would no longer have a job. Ms Conlon complied with this instruction for the remainder of her employment with the hotel although she had made it clear to her manager that she did not feel comfortable wearing a skirt.
Ms Conlon went to the Equality Authority to seek advice on the matter. The Equality Authority wrote on her behalf to the hotel submitting that the requirement for women to wear skirts was discriminatory on the gender ground. The Equality Authority pointed out that Ms Conlon was anxious to resolve the matter amicably if at all possible and would be satisfied if the policy requiring women to wear skirts was changed. However, the Equality Authority received no response whatsoever.
Subsequent to sending of this letter, Ms Conlon experienced a dramatic reduction in her shifts and within a short period was left with no shifts at all. She attempted on numerous occasions to speak to both her manager and the general manager but with no success. Approximately a month later on 9th April she received her P45 in the post with no covering letter and no reason was ever furnished for her dismissal. The Equality Authority wrote to the respondent seeking an explanation but again received no reply. The hotel denied the allegation of discrimination and victimisatory dismissal at the hearing of the complaint. They submitted that their policy, contained in their employee handbook, was that female waiting staff could choose to wear a skirt or trousers. Ms Conlon denied any knowledge of the employee handbook. The hotel also claimed that they were unhappy with Ms Conlon as an employee.
The Equality Officer in his decision found on the balance of evidence given that an instruction was given to the complainant that she must wear a skirt. In this regard he took into account the fact that Ms Conlon had sought to resolve the matter by changing the policy to allow her wear trousers. The Equality Officer considered the approach set out in Labour Court Determination No. EED0314: “Applying that principle whether or not a dress code is discriminatory, it is the Court’s view that the appropriate approach is to consider if it applies a common standard of neatness, conventionality and hygiene to both men and women and does not unreasonably bear more heavily on one gender than it does on the other.” However, the Equality Officer found that the respondent’s stated policy contained in its handbook was not implemented for Ms Conlon and no operational reason was given why she was instructed to wear a skirt. The Equality Officer found that discriminatory treatment had taken place.
In considering the victimisation and victimisatory dismissal, the Equality Officer found that there were no disciplinary issues that would have warranted the complainant’s dismissal, and also that no explanation for a reduction of shifts and dismissal was provided. The Equality Officer found that given the short time between the letter from the Equality Authority and the first shift being taken away and subsequent dismissal, and in the absence of any other credible explanation, that this amounted to victimisation and victimisatory dismissal. The Equality Officer stressed the seriousness of the victimisation and victimisatory dismissal that took place in this case. In his decision the Equality Officer awarded the complainant €1,600 in compensation for the discriminatory treatment and €6,500 compensation in respect of the victimisation and victimisatory dismissal.
2. Race / Gender
2.1 Cross appeal to the Labour Court
Bozena Czerski v ICE Group
Ms Bozena Czerski applied for assistance from the Equality Authority in respect of an appeal of Equality Officer Decision (DEC-E2006-027) brought by herself and ICE Group to the Labour Court.
The original case taken by Ms Czerski to the Equality Tribunal was on the basis that ICE Group had discriminated against her on grounds of race and gender when they failed to submit her name for a job with a client company because she could only provide one work based reference. ICE Group had required two work based references. The Equality Officer found in her favour on some but not all grounds on 13th June 2006 and awarded her the sum of €7,000.
The Equality Officer found:
- the complainant had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination in relation to her assertion that she was directly discriminated against by the respondent on grounds of race and gender.
- the complainant had failed to establish a prima facia case of discrimination in relation to her assertion that she was indirectly discriminated against by the respondent on grounds of gender
- the respondent indirectly discriminated against the complainant on grounds of race contrary to section 31 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998.
Ms. Czerski appealed the decision that she had failed to establish a prima facia case of discrimination on grounds of gender and that she had failed to establish a prima facia case of indirect discrimination on grounds of gender. She did not appeal the decision of direct discrimination on race grounds.
The Ice Group appealed against the Equality Officers decision that the complainant was indirectly discriminated against on the grounds of race.
The Authority granted assistance to Ms Czerski for the appeal and submissions were filed.
Background
Ms Czerski is originally from Poland and came to Ireland in 1986 following her marriage to an Irish resident. She did not work in Ireland outside the home until the year 2000. In that year she applied for and was given a job as a production operative. In 2001 she was notified that this company was closing its manufacturing plant in Ireland. As last in, she understood that she would be among the first to be let go.
In the week beginning 6th August 2001, the Ice Group placed an advertisement in the Western People newspaper looking for temporary production operatives on behalf of a client company. Ms Czerski replied to the advertisement and was sent a Database Registration Form to complete. On the form she provided details of one referee, however the form required two references.