In this case, the employee, a Higher Executive Officer applied for the role of Assistant Principal Officer via an internal competition. Applicants were shortlisted based on pre-determined criteria. The employee's application was not shortlisted and she claimed the she was discriminated against on the grounds of her age.

The employee claimed that her age could be easily calculated from her application form, which required details of each applicant's educational history, including dates of attendance in school and college. The employee claimed this gave rise to unconscious bias in favour of younger candidates. In addition, the employee claimed that the Board did not apply best practice and apply scores in order to determine which candidates to short list and they failed to keep adequate records of the basis for their decision. The employee argued that in the absence of transparent objective criteria being applied to each candidate, it was highly likely that the process was flawed and more prone to unconscious bias and discriminatory outcomes.

The employer denied the allegations and responded that the selection process was fair and that selection was based on the headings included in the application form, which it claimed were objective and honestly applied. The employer also argued that the panel were trained in relation to unconscious bias and discrimination and that the panel was diverse as members were different of ages and gender. The employer further submitted that a number of older candidates had been shortlisted for the role therefore dispelling any suggestion of age discrimination.

Decision

The Adjudication Officer found that the employee had shown that older candidates were less likely to be shortlisted, and noted that the requirement to detail the period of attendance at school or college meant that the age of the candidate could be easily deduced. This, together with the lack of transparency regarding the shortlisting procedure and the one sentence explanation as to why the employee was unsuccessful in her application led the Adjudication Officer to find that the employer had not rebutted the presumption that discrimination had occurred.

In deciding on the appropriate remedy, the Adjudication Officer noted that 26 weeks remuneration was just and equitable. However, unusually, the Adjudication Officer went on to say that as 26 weeks remuneration was less than €40,000 (which is referred to in section 82(4) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015), he went on to make an award in the amount of €40,000 in favour of the employee.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2021/march/adj-00025554.html