WRC found that the university did not discriminate on gender or age grounds in rejecting a 2022 professorial promotion application.

The Complainant, a long-serving academic at the University of Galway, alleged that she had been discriminated against on the grounds of gender and age when her 2022 application for promotion to “Professor in …” was rejected. She had begun as a temporary teaching appointee in 1994, moved to a fixed-term lecturer post in 2003, and in 2005 had her lecturer title and research duties removed without consent. After a 2015 Equality Tribunal ruling, the university reinstated her lecturer contract, and she was promoted to Senior Lecturer/Associate Professor in 2017. In 2022 she sought professorial promotion but was unsuccessful and her appeal was refused. She argued that the Academic Promotions Committee (APC) ignored the career damage caused by earlier discriminatory contracts and maternity-related barriers, treated her entire record as if unaffected, and mis-scored research and funding sections that described those constraints. She cited direct gender bias, including the APC chair’s advice that “as a woman” she should be more strategic, and age bias, noting that younger female academics benefited from support schemes closed to her cohort. She maintained that the university failed to follow its own policies, misrepresented her appeal grounds, and perpetuated discrimination despite past tribunal findings.

The Respondent university explained that the Complainant’s 2022 bid for promotion to “Professor in …” was evaluated under published guidelines and a transparent process. A 16-member gender-balanced APC scored nine criteria. While the Complainant met several standards, she received the lowest score in three key areas. As promotion required meeting all criteria or compensating with exceptional performance elsewhere, her application failed. She received written feedback, attended an oral feedback session, and lodged an appeal. The Academic Promotions Appeals Committee reviewed the process and ultimately upheld the original decision, finding the procedure fair and consistent with policy. The Respondent argued she presented no comparator, evidence, or link between the decision and her gender or age, so no prima facie discrimination case arose.

The Adjudicating Officer found that the Complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on either gender or age grounds under the Employment Equality Acts. She produced no valid male or age-based comparators and offered only general claims that younger female colleagues were treated differently. Alleged discriminatory remarks were unsupported by witnesses. The University’s structured promotion process applied identical scoring to all candidates and allowed contextual statements that were considered but not scored. Given balanced gender outcomes and no evidence that the panel knew or considered her age, the complaint was not upheld.

Employers should:                

• Maintain documented promotion and selection procedures with objective, published criteria. All panel members should complete equality and unconscious-bias training and apply the same scoring system to every candidate. Providing written feedback and offer a structured appeal mechanism. 
   
  
• Retain full records of applications, scoring sheets, panel deliberations, and any information submitted by candidates. Communicate timelines and outcomes promptly and consistently. When feedback meetings occur, keep minutes. 
   
  
• Avoid any practice that could give the appearance of preferential or disadvantageous treatment, such as informal “extra credit” for individual circumstances. Instead, use policies that already accommodate protected leave or career breaks. Regularly review promotion outcomes by gender, age, and other protected grounds to identify and address potential systemic bias.

The full case can be found here.