The claimant worked for the Revenue Commissioners from 1975 as an Executive Officer. He submitted that he was discriminated against by the respondent on the age ground, specifically in relation to a competition for promotion that took place in 2007. 

He had previously applied for a Higher Executive Officer (HEO) position in 2003. The complainant submitted that, in 2007, he again applied for promotion to HEO on the basis of Seniority and Suitability and, on 10th January, 2008, he received a letter from the respondent stating that he had been deemed unsuitable for promotion. He submitted that he was discriminated against by the respondent with respect to this competition. He submitted that to be deemed 'not suitable' is an upsetting, degrading and insulting experience and he outlined the impact he said it has had on his professional confidence. He submitted that, in light of his previous PMDS ratings and his success at a 2005 promotion conference, it is completely illogical to say that he is suddenly deemed to be 'not suitable' when the only thing that has changed is his age. He used ages above and below 57 as his comparative groups.

The respondent said about 300 candidates were invited to apply. A respondent witness said that he thought there were around 15-20 applications about which reservations were expressed. He said that each competency with each candidate was dealt with separately.

Statistical evidence could be used to argue both sides of the argument. The EO was impressed by the notes of the 'consistory conference' (selection panel) and, although he found in favour of the Commissioners, issued a word of caution:

"It is clear that it was the use of the phrase "not suitable for promotion" that gave rise to the complainant forming the view that there was a change in approach of the respondent in the two years that had passed since his previous successful application for inclusion on a panel for promotion, and that this change was related to his age. (In this context, it is clear to me that if a different form of wording had been used by the respondent in the present case then this complaint would not have come before the Tribunal. It might be useful for the respondent to take note of this in the interests of avoiding further complaints should similar circumstances arise)..."
http://bit.ly/r31715