The Complainant claimed that she had been discriminated against by her Employer by reason of her Gender and her Family Status. The Claimant alleged that the discrimination arose by way of a Department of Education and Skills Circular (9/2013) which came into effect in May 2013. She also claimed that she is now being treated less favourably than her non-pregnant colleagues as she has not been afforded the same entitlement to annual leave and public holidays.

The Circular 09/2013 provided that Annual Leave henceforth was to be taken on existing school closure days. The Claimant has been a Career Guidance teacher for 19 years. During this time, she had taken two separate periods of Maternity Leave. Due to new terms and conditions introduced by Circular 09/2013, the claimant’s second period of maternity leave was shorter which she claimed caused her time off to be stressful as she did not have enough time to breastfeed and bond with her new baby.

The Claimant submitted that she has been less favourably treated on the grounds of her gender and family status than a comparator, a teacher who was not pregnant and/or had not taken maternity leave, and who was therefore in a position to avail of holidays in the specified periods set out in another Circular.

The Respondent accepted that it was hard on teachers that their leave in lieu was perceived to be extinguished but pointed out that the Department had preserved Maternity Leave entitlements together with Annual Leave entitlements which kept them on an equal footing with all Public Servants. 167 days annually are expected to be classroom based.

The Respondent recognises the need for rest and relaxation but does not take the view that all days of school closure are days of protected annual leave.

The Court accepted the Respondent’s view that for reasons of good management and planning, Annual Leave must be taken to coincide with the days that the school is closed. The Court opined that that the Claimant was justifiably upset with the change in her Maternity Leave arrangements but that this was merely a loss of privilege rather than a form of active discrimination by her employer.

She returns to work on an equal footing with her colleagues. Therefore, the court held that the claim must fail as there was no breach of the Employment Equality Acts.  
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2019/april/dec-e2019-004.html