The complainant is a paramedic who applied for the position of Emergency Medical Controller, was successful and placed on a panel in 2009.  In 2012 a male comparator was appointed to a post left vacant in Cork on the retirement of the previous incumbent without competition and in spite of the complainant being on a panel.  The control centre in Cork was closed in 2013.  The complainant asserted that the continued refusal to allow her finish her advanced paramedic training was further discrimination of her on the gender ground.

The respondent asserted that training for the controller post began by “sitting with Nelly” on the person’s own time.  The male to female ratio in the controller role is 4 to 1.  It also asserted that the panel that the complainant had been placed on had expired in February 2013 but the filling of the post in 2012 created by retirement was based on a sanction to fill the post temporarily.  This was done by contacting those who were trained (therefore not including the complainant) and two persons expressed interest, one male and one female.  The selection was made by taking names from a hat.  The male candidate was appointed in a temporary capacity.  The complainant raised a grievance and was told she should undergo the training on her own time and she began this process.

In terms of direct discrimination and access to employment the Equality Officer lists a précis by the Labour Court in O’Higgins v UCD of what needs to be considered when assessing if a promotion process is tainted with discrimination and this is contained at paragraph 4.1 of the Decision.  As the impugned post was temporary the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of direct discrimination.

The Equality Officer states that had the male comparator been permanently appointed when a national panel including the complainant was extant the result might have been different.  She also states that had the female candidate who had more experience than the male comparator lodged a complaint that result may also have been different.

In light of the public service moratorium and the male comparator being trained, while the complainant was not, the Equality Officer found the respondent’s approach was objectively justified and on that basis the complainant was not indirectly discriminated against in terms of access to promotion.

In terms of access to training, the Equality Officer did not find the arrangement where people trained on their own time to be discriminatory.  In addition, while the respondent’s refusal to permit the complainant to attend the advanced paramedic course for a third time (the previous two attempts being infrequently attended) might be harsh it was not discriminatory.

The Equality Officer, in an obiter comment, was critical of picking the names out of a hat.  She also found the assertion that both involved were content with the outcome was hard to believe.

Why this case is of interest:

The use of a hat for a selection, virtual or actual, suggests that both candidates were equal in all respects.  In fact, that is not the case as it appears the female who expressed an interest in the post in this case had more experience although the respondent expressed it as both having over 4 years. None of this would have availed the complainant, of course, as she was not the person whose name was ‘in the hat’.