The complainant worked as General Manager of Sligo Community Training Centre and following the birth of her second child, coinciding with the hospitalisation of her first child a number of times, she requested a return to work in the less demanding role of tutor.  She was informed that she should resign as General Manager and she would be given a fixed term post as tutor.  While working as a tutor the General Manager post was advertised and the male colleague, who had filled the post in an acting-up capacity during her periods of maternity leave, was successful.

The complainant applied for the role and was asked why she resigned to which she replied describing her child’s health problems.

The Equality Officer was “not provided with any information about the successful applicant’s management duties or how long he held these posts or evidence to support the contention he was managing large budgets”.  She was satisfied that the complainant’s management and experience was in no way inferior and in many respects superior to that of the successful male candidate.  The Equality Officer was satisfied that the complainant’s qualifications were more relevant than the successful candidate’s.  After a thorough review of the selection process she found that it fell short on transparency, objectivity, fairness and good practice and in the circumstances the complainant had raised an inference of discrimination which the respondent had failed to rebut.

As the complainant and the successful candidate have the same family status the complaint on that ground was unsuccessful.

The complainant was awarded €13,000, the maximum possible in a case of access to employment.

Why is this case of interest?

• It provides a useful review of what a selection process should involve.
• The complainant, although in the employment on a fixed term contract at the time of the discrimination, was awarded redress on the basis of access to employment only; that is, as a non-employee.  This is based on section 82(4) which states that the maximum that may be awarded normally requires that the complainant be in receipt of remuneration on the date of referral of the complaint to the Tribunal, or the date of dismissal.  The ending of a fixed-term contract where the term of the contract has run out is not normally considered a dismissal.
• The selection of a lesser qualified candidate was also addressed in an earlier Decision this year, DEC-E2013-054 where the complainant was awarded approximately a year’s salary.  As pointed out in the review of that earlier Decision, also on the gender ground, this logic will apply regardless of the ground.