Summary Sentence:
The Complainant faced discrimination based on family status in a promotion competition after maternity leave, despite a fair process. Comments from management, as well as assessment discrepancies, led to a €30,000 compensation award, underscoring the need for unbiased employment decisions.

Background:
The Complainant, a Planner with fifteen years of service, was the most senior and experienced member of her team, responsible for training new staff. She trained a successful candidate who was then promoted to team leader. The Complainant alleged discrimination based on family status, alleging she was passed over for promotion after returning from maternity leave. Despite receiving leadership training and acting as team leader, she alleged she faced comments about her extended leave; however, she did not pursue an internal grievance due to perceived bias and potential delays. The Complainant was notified of her unsuccessful application via a generic email, without further discussion or support. Additionally, claimed she was excluded from a significant planning meeting following the death of Queen Elizabeth.

The Respondent refuted the Complainant’s discrimination claim, asserting the appointment process for the Planning Lead role was fair and transparent with objective criteria. Further, countered that the Complainant, one of five candidates, failed to provide substantive evidence of discrimination. The Respondent highlighted the necessity for the Complainant to demonstrate unfavourable treatment compared to others. Despite the Complainant's assertions, the Respondent denied discriminatory motives and emphasised the absence of unfairness in the selection process. Citing legal precedents, the Respondent argues against subjective interpretations, urging adherence to the selection Board's decisions in such matters.

Outcome:
The Adjudication Officer held the Complainant alleged discrimination based on family status pursuant to the Employment Equality Acts, stating she was treated unfavourably in a promotion competition after returning from maternity leave. The said Acts define "family status ground" as where one person has family status and the other does not. The Adjudicating Officer concluded that the Complainant did show discrimination based on family status during the promotion process. Despite a robust selection process, the inference of discrimination arose from comments made by a senior manager and discrepancies within the assessment criteria. The company failed to rebut the presumption of discrimination, raising concerns about impartiality in the selection panel. Consequently, the Adjudication Officer found the Complainant was discriminated against as a parent, awarding €30,000 in compensation and mandating equality training for all staff.

Practical Guidance for Employers:
Employers should ensure fair and transparent promotion processes, adhering to objective criteria to avoid discrimination allegations. Managers should refrain from making potentially biased comments, particularly regarding parental leave. Prompt and supportive communication with unsuccessful candidates is crucial to maintain trust. Legal precedents emphasise the need for evidence-based assessments and impartial decision-making to mitigate discrimination risks. This case underscores the significance of proactive measures, such as equality training, to uphold a discrimination-free workplace culture.

The full case can be found here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2024/adj-00043525.html