Claim of disability and race discrimination in a recruitment process was dismissed for lack of evidence establishing a prima facie case.

The Complainant, who applied for a senior position with the Respondent, alleged she was subjected to discrimination on the grounds of disability and race during the recruitment process. She stated that during a pre-screening interview, the recruitment consultant asked intrusive questions about her PTSD, care regime, and country of origin, despite her prior written request for reasonable accommodation in the form of interview questions in advance and extra time. The Complainant asserted that these accommodations were ignored, the questioning was inappropriate and humiliating, and her professional experience was downplayed. This leading to her exclusion from the shortlist. She argued that shifting reasons were provided for her non-progression and selection criteria applied were inconsistent with the advertised role. Also, that the questioning reflected bias and that her requests for confidentiality were disregarded. The Complainant maintained that the failure to provide reasonable accommodation and the focus on her disability and origin amounted to discriminatory treatment under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 - 2015.

The Respondent’s case was presented primarily through Ms A, the recruitment consultant, and Mr B, a board member. Ms A explained that she was engaged to manage the recruitment campaign, which followed agreed criteria set out in the Candidate Information Pack. She emphasised that the Complainant’s request for reasonable accommodation explicitly referred to the formal interview stage only. She described pre-screening as a conversational process to clarify CVs and give candidates a chance to hone applications. She also denied that inappropriate or discriminatory questions were asked. Further, denied making any “disparaging” facial expressions regarding nationality, noting that two other shortlisted candidates were from the same country. Ms A maintained that the shortlisting was based solely on qualifications and relevant experience. Mr B supported this view, stressing the need for strong Irish human rights experience to “hit the ground running” in the role. He confirmed that equality and diversity were central to the Respondent’s ethos.

The Adjudicating Officer found that the Complainant had not established a prima facie case of discrimination under the Employment Equality Acts. While they alleged discrimination on disability and race grounds during a pre-screening interview, she provided no medical evidence to confirm her PTSD amounted to a disability within the meaning of the Act, nor did she identify a comparator as required under s.28 (Adjudicators cannot speculate on whether a condition constitutes a disability in the absence of professional evidence). Regarding race, the Complainant’s reliance on her interpretation of a facial expression was deemed insufficient. They concluded that the Complainant had not shown less favourable treatment on either ground and dismissed the complaint.

Employers should:

• Ensure that recruitment processes are transparent, fair, and consistently documented. Clear communication of job criteria helps avoid later disputes about why certain candidates were not shortlisted. Using structured processes demonstrates that decisions are based on merit, not protected characteristics.
  
• Handle requests for reasonable accommodation carefully. Employers should train HR staff and recruitment partners to understand equality obligations, and to record accommodation requests accurately. Even where a request seems unclear / premature, it should be acknowledged and addressed in good faith.  
  
• Maintain a respectful environment during interactions. Seemingly casual comments or questions, particularly about personal characteristics (e.g. disability or nationality), can be misinterpreted. By keeping conversations professional, job-focused, and documented.         
  

The full case can be found here.