This case also relates to the detriment suffered after the complainant told her employer of her pregnancy.  She argued that while her announcement of her pregnancy was initially welcomed the relationship between her and her employer quickly deteriorated outlining a number of incidents in support of this.  The Equality Officer found, in respect of this deteriorating relationship, that the complainant had established facts from which an inference of discrimination could be drawn. The respondent described other issues that were going on for her at that time.  However the apparent link between the deteriorating relationship and the discriminatory ground appears to be the proximity in time to the pregnancy.

The Equality Officer also found that the refusal to allow the complainant return one week early from sick leave in circumstances where a temporary staff member had been engaged by the respondent for the entire period was not discriminatory.  She found that the treatment of the complainant’s grievances by the respondent did not amount to discrimination. 

The complainant was trained in Montessori but was placed in the toddler room on her return on 5 July 2010 allegedly because she was required to hold a FETAC level 5 by September 2012 and because the lady, Ms. B, who had replaced her while on maternity leave, was considered more qualified and more experienced than the complainant.  Ms. B who held FETAC level 5 in childcare was employed fulltime in the Montessori class even though there were vacancies in the toddler area and in the Montessori part of another crèche run by the respondent.  The Equality Officer stated “The position in the toddler room for which she had no training involved dealing with much younger children and she was no longer using her skill as a Montessori teacher.  I am not satisfied that the complainant was offered an equivalent post in terms of her qualifications, experience and status within the crèche.  I am satisfied that the complainant has raised a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment in relation to the position she was offered on her return to work.”

The Equality Officer also considered this same issue, the failure to return the complainant to Montessori teaching on her return from maternity leave, under the heading of victimisation.  Based on the timings the Equality Officer was, “…satisfied that the referral of the case by the complainant influenced the decision not to allow her back as a Montessori teacher following her return from maternity leave and to move her to the toddler room.  I find that the complainant has established that she was subject to adverse treatment in accordance with Section 74.”

Something to note in relation this use of the same facts in respect of more than one head of liability under the Acts was addressed by the Labour Court as follows:

“It seems to the Court that as a matter of principle the Complainant cannot rely on the same facts to obtain redress under more than one head of liability under the Acts. The Court will, however, deal with these overlapping claims as if they were pleaded in the alternative. “

Interestingly, the constructive dismissal was not upheld because the Equality Officer found that the complainant had not actually resigned when the complaint was made and in fact continued to submit sick certs, a situation which failed the entitlement to terminate the contract test.  The complainant failed to show that anything discriminatory had occurred when the she ceased to submit the sick certs and therefore “no further incidents of discriminatory treatment occurred which would have justified her decision to resign at that time”.  This latter issue meant that the complainant’s assertions failed the reasonableness test. 

The complainant was awarded €5000 for the discriminatory treatment found and €7000 for the victimisation found.