This is an appeal against the AO’s decision. The complainant claimed she had been discriminated against, subjected to harassment, and that she had been victimised by her employer, Aer Lingus Limited.

The complainant submitted she suffered discrimination on grounds of age when she was removed from her position within the catering department as Manager In Flight Sales in August 2013. She was placed in the respondent’s “internal resource pool” and alleged this was for discriminatory reasons until she was made permanent in December 2016.

The complainant submitted that this constituted a discriminatory act over a period of time which had a clear and adverse effect on her and did not end until December 2016, which was within the cognisable period.

The claim was based on a decision/attempt to remove her from her role in November 2016, without good cause or any reason, to accommodate a younger colleague returning from maternity leave. Aer Lingus rejected the claim.

The Court considered if the incidents relied upon by the complainant could be regarded as part of a continuing act of discrimination for the purpose of Section 77(5) of the Act, which provides that “a claim for redress in respect of discrimination or victimisation may not be referred under this section after the end of the period of 6 months from the date of occurrence of the discrimination or victimisation to which the case relates or, as the case may be, the date of its most recent occurrence”.

The Court first considered whether an act or acts of discrimination occurred within the cognisable period before it could contemplate whether events outside of that period could be considered part of a continuum or regime of discrimination and within the jurisdiction of the Court.

The complainant accepted that she did not raise an allegation of age discrimination until she referred her claim under the Acts to the WRC in January 2017.

The respondent submitted that as the complainant’s role no longer existed, she was given the option to take a voluntary severance package or opt to be placed in the resource pool, which was designed to support employees who were displaced due to business change or restructuring with continuing employment and redeployment opportunities.

The respondent informed the Court that the complainant’s employment terms and conditions had not varied in any way nor had her grade changed. The Court evaluated the complainant’s version of events. It concluded sufficient facts had not been established to infer demotion and as such no inference of discrimination on the age ground arose.

The Court held that the complainant had failed to discharge the burden of proof which rested upon her and had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Therefore, the Court concluded the complainant did not suffer discrimination on grounds of age in contravention of the Acts. The decision of the AO was upheld, and the appeal failed.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2018/December/EDA1849.html