This case involved a claim that the complainant had been discriminated on grounds of gender and age in relation to promotion. The complainant had applied for promotion to Senior Lecturer and was unsuccessful. She appealed this decision and it was approved for reconsideration to the University Committee on Academic Appointments, Tenure and Promotion. Her appeal was ultimately unsuccessful.

The complainant alleges that older lecturers were less successful in the promotion rounds and specifically that her successful comparator was 20 years younger. The complainant also criticised the respondent's "five year rule" which meant that any work outside a reference period of 5 years is disregarded for assessing suitability for promotion and claimed that this left older academics at a disadvantage.

The respondent denied discriminating against the complainant and claimed that the competitive promotion process affects all candidates equally. The respondent alleged that the complainant's teaching accomplishments fell short of the excellent standard required and that as the comparator had achieved this standard, and better marks, she was promoted. The respondent denied that discrimination had occurred and gave evidence of the age and genders of the candidates involved in the process. The respondent also stated that the family responsibilities of the complainant were entirely unrelated to her ability to fulfil her role and was not considered by the committees involved.

The Adjudication Officer stated that the promotion application forms provided by the respondent were extensively redacted, such that they were useless for establishing what academic judgement was applied. They also noted how no notes or marking schemes were provided. The Adjudication Officer gave the respondent a number of opportunities to provide less redacted materials, notes etc. but the respondent did not do so. The Adjudication Officer held that the complainant had not been discriminated on the grounds of gender but had been discriminated against on grounds of age.

Accordingly, the Adjudication Officer ordered the retrospective promotion of the complainant and that she would be paid the corresponding salary and benefits from that date, including her pension entitlements. In addition, the Adjudication Officer ordered that compensation of €30,000, not subject to income tax, be paid for the infringement of her statutory rights. http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2018/March/DEC-E2018-009.html