Teacher discriminated against.

The Complainant worked as a teacher in the Respondent school from 2020. In June 2022 she met the Principal (Mr A), who, she said, told her two identical vacancies would arise in 5th and 4th class and that Mr B was being given the 5th class post, while the other post would be dealt with later. She said Ms C was present. That evening, Mr B allegedly confirmed to her that he had the 5th class role. Days later, Mr A told her Friday 17 June would be her last day. The Complainant was two months short of a CID and contacted the INTO. She complained to the Chair (Mr D), who, she said, acknowledged he had left matters to the Principal. She said interview criteria were not provided in advance; the panel was Mr A, Mr D and Ms D; no interview notes were taken; and two objective scoring categories were marked the same for all internal candidates, negating her experience/qualifications advantage. She maintained Mr B was treated more favourably by being summarily allocated a post while she was required to interview. She also said that during 2021 to 2022 Mr E repeatedly addressed her by her Protestant married name, that Mr C and Mr E joked she should be baking for a Church of Ireland school (while Mr A laughed), and that colleagues queried her children’s First Communion, which made her feel different and excluded. She accepted limited participation in a staff WhatsApp culture she considered inappropriate. Under cross-examination she maintained Mr A had decided to give Mr B the 5th class post before interviews and that documentation (notes, criteria, circular compliance, panel leave dates) was absent. She alleged less favourable treatment on age, gender and religion grounds.

In June 2023, the Respondent filed submissions and said the Complainant had pursued claims under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, the Employment Equality Acts 1998, the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973, and the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003, and had withdrawn an Unfair Dismissals claim. The Respondent denied all discrimination and maintained the burden of proof lay with the Complainant. The Respondent stated the Complainant worked as a substitute teacher from November 2020, on fixed-term/specified-purpose contracts covering others’ leave, and that all three substitutes (the Complainant, Mr B and Ms A) finished in June 2022 when the substantive teachers returned. It said a June meeting occurred (with Ms C present) where the Principal explained no vacancies then existed and any future roles would be openly recruited; a follow-up meeting reiterated that advice. The Respondent denied that Mr B was “appointed on the spot,” asserting he too finished in June and later applied. It said that in August 2022 the Board advertised temporary posts; four candidates (the Complainant, Mr B, Ms A and an external candidate) interviewed before a panel of the Principal, the Board Chair (Mr D) and an independent assessor (Ms D), using IPPN criteria. The Complainant ranked third; Mr B and Ms A were appointed. The Respondent argued age and gender could not explain the outcome (Mr B was in the Complainant’s age bracket; Ms A was the same gender) and said it did not know or rely on anyone’s religion.

Witness evidence, the Respondent said, supported its account.

The Adjudicating Officer found that the Complainant was discriminated against on the gender ground and that the complaint was well-founded. The Respondent was directed to (i) review its recruitment procedures to ensure “openness and transparency” in line with Chapter 2 the Circular 0044/2019, and (ii) keep and retain interview notes for all future competitions. For redress and having regard to the need for sanctions to be effective, proportionate and dissuasive, the Respondent was ordered to pay the Complainant €42,484 (equivalent to nine months’ pay).

Employers should:

• Tighten recruitment governance. Pre-agree objective criteria and share them with candidates and apply a transparent marking matrix. Train all panel members on equality law and unconscious bias; include at least one independent assessor.  
   
  
• Further, keep contemporaneous interview notes and retain all document. Record the rationale for scores, especially where candidates are closely matched.  
   
  
• Treat internal and external applicants identically and avoid informal assurances about prospective roles. Audit recent competitions for compliance gaps and remediate. Add a policy mandating openness, documentation, and review.  
  

The full case can be found here.