Paul D Maier is a barrister specialising in the law of work, labour, and employment. Based in Dublin, Ireland, he is a member of the Law Library, having been called to the Bar in 2022.
Paul represents both employers and employees at all levels of the Courts, as well as before the Labour Court and the Workplace Relations Commission. He is a qualified arbitrator and is frequently commissioned to lead independent investigations and disciplinary procedures for organisations. Additionally, he is regularly engaged to provide legal advice and opinions on employment law and related matters.
Paul serves as the Editor of the Irish Employment Law Journal and Employment Law Report, and he is the Treasurer of the Employment Bar Association.
Summary Sentence:
The Complainant’s unsuccessful application for a promotion after returning from maternity leave was found to meet a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of family status.
Background:
The Complainant worked for the Respondent as a Planner for the Respondent for fifteen years. She applied for a promotion after returning from maternity leave and was unsuccessful in that process. The Complainant said that reference was made to her “extended maternity leave” by agents of the Respondent, and that after raising a concern regarding her unsuccessful application, she was told by another agent of the Respondent that “timing is everything.” The Complainant also alleged she was excluded from an important planning meeting following the death of Queen Elizabeth II. The Complainant referred to her prior experience of leading her team on an acting basis and that her unsuccessful application was an example of her being “passed over” for promotion.
The Respondent said its processes were entirely fair. The Respondent used a panel of interviewers and used a rubric of evaluation which was based on the requirements of the role. They contended the Complainant’s allegations were without merit and did not give rise to a prima facie case of discrimination.
Outcome:
The Adjudication Officer found that the comments of one person who was on the interview panel referring to “extended maternity leave” gave rise to an inference of discrimination, particularly where that person was not made available to the hearing at the WRC and where there was no external, independent member of the interview panel. It was also noted that the Complainant was only marked three out of five for “attitude and flexibility”, compared to the successful candidate’s rating of five out of five in this category.
Practical Guidance for Employers:
A Respondent employer needs to rebut all allegations of discrimination made against it at WRC adjudication, because a failure to do so is likely to mean the Complainant’s case reaches the very low prima facie standard required.
The full case is here: https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2024/adj-00043525.html
Continue reading
We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.
Please log in to view the full article.
What you'll get:
- Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
- Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
- 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
- Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team
Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial
