This case was an appeal from the Employer against a decision of the Equality officer before the Labour Court. The original claim surrounded discriminatory treatment on the grounds of her pregnancy which ultimately led to her dismissal. The Equality Officer concluded that the respondent company had discriminated against the complainant on the basis of her gender and thus they held that she was entitled to claim constructive dismissal. On the facts, the Equality Officer subsequently awarded the complainant €22,000 for the discriminatory treatment she endured in the course of employment and a further €11,000 for the distress caused by victimisation.

The complainant was employed with the respondent as a cleaner. Immediately following her announcement that she was pregnant to the Managing Director, her contracted days were reduced to three days per week. When the complainant queried this decision she was told by the Managing Director that she "could not work in the Hotel with a big belly”. Before her hours changed the complainant decided to take annual leave to ensure she would get the benefit of her full 5 day week payment. Upon returning to work she discovered that she had no hours on the roster at all, on enquiry she was advised that she had been placed on health and safety leave. This decision was made without any consultation with the complainant. Subsequently she was given a fixed term contract which identified her as a "part-time Cleaning Assistant" which meant that the complainant had suffered a demotion from her role as full time cleaning supervisor. The complainant refused to sign the contract due to this difference.

The complainant was further victimised when the respondent called a meeting of staff to inform them that the complainant was bringing a claim against him and to encourage staff to make complaints against her.

The complainant later resigned her position by letter as a result of the difficulties she had endured in this position.

The respondent claimed that they were aware of the difficulties that the complainant had had in previous pregnancies and therefore they were more than happy "to accommodate her in any way possible". The respondent claims that it was the complainant who requested a reduction of days at work as she intended to apply for social welfare payment to supplement her income. Likewise the respondent claims that the complainant also sought Health and Safety leave to avail of the health and safety benefit.

The respondent claimed that he did not invite staff to make complaints against the respondent.

The court held that the complainant had failed to establish a prima facie case in relation to the claim of victimisation. The court held that it could not accept hearsay evidence and the lack of credible evidence to support this claim meant that ultimately the court could not draw an inference of victimisation.

However the court did find an inference of discrimination in the claim that the complainants hours were changed and later removed from the rota and from the fact that another employee was appointed to the complainants supervisory position. The court noted that this coupled with the claims surrounding the demands on the complainant to apply for social welfare to cover her loss discharged the burden on the complainant to establish a prima facie case, transferring the burden upon the complainant. The court noted that "the respondent failed to discharge that onus" and consequently the court found that on this basis the complainant was discriminated against by reason of her pregnancy. Consequently the court ordered that the respondent pay the complainant €16,000 for the discrimination she endured. However the court did note that "no part of the award was made in respect of remuneration".

http://bit.ly/1lbgMY5