This is an appeal brought by the Complainant, Ms Siobhan Nolan, to the Labour Court after the Adjudication Officer refused to uphold her claim of unfair discrimination on grounds of gender and family status.

The Complainant was employed by Gino’s Italian Ice Cream from March 2013 until September 2018 and went on maternity leave in April 2018, which was due to conclude on the 30th of September 2018. The Respondent hired another employee to replace the Complainant whilst she was on maternity leave.

In August 2018, the Complainant contacted the Respondent in relation to her return to work following her maternity leave and expressed an interest in working at a managerial level when she returned.  She was told that an Area Manager would contact her. When the Complainant attended at the shop a few days later, the Shop Manager told her that she would soon be leaving the employment and that the Complainant's replacement would be promoted as her replacement. The Complainant expressed her disappointment that she had not been given an opportunity to apply for the managerial position, which she attributed to the fact that she was on maternity leave.

The Complainant resigned from employment on 22 September 2018 and submitted complaints to the WRC under the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015 ('the Acts') alleging that she had been discriminated against on the grounds of gender and family status.

The Respondent's submitted that there was no obligation on it to promote an employee. Where it does so, the promotion is based on justifiable reasons such as experience and primary skills. The Respondent guaranteed the Complainant's right to return on the same terms as she left prior to her maternity leave.  She was never told that she would be returning to a lesser role nor was she denied future managerial opportunities that may arise since her pregnancy.

During various communications, the Respondent queried the Complainant's availability, to which she replied that she was available on a full-time basis, including weekends.  However, the Respondent claimed that it had only sought clarity regarding the Complainant's availability because of experience with other employees returning from maternity leave who had sought to work different arrangements than they had prior to going on the leave.

The Respondent highlighted that it has a history that shows it does not act in a discriminatory fashion. The Respondent also pointed out that it has a grievance procedure in operation which was not utilised by the Complainant.

The Labour Court was satisfied that the Respondent did not come anywhere near meeting the burden of proving that the treatment of the Complainant was unrelated to her pregnancy. Accordingly, the Court found that the Complainant was the victim of direct discrimination on gender grounds and so overturned the decision of the Adjudication Officer and ordered the Respondent to pay compensation in the sum of €20,000 to the Complainant.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2020/october/eda2017.html

You can also view a review of this case and the implications for employers here:
https://www.legal-island.ie/articles/ire/features/equality-law-decisions/2020/nov/notification-of-vacancies-during-maternity-leave-avoid-discrimination/