Background:

TheComplainant was hired as a solicitor with the Respondent firm, a relatively small Kerry-based practice, from 2 January 2020. The Complainant contended that the attitude of the Respondent solicitor, the principal solicitor at the Respondent firm, changed drastically after the Complainant had notified the Respondent solicitor of her pregnancy in August 2021. The Complainant alleged a number of actions which indicated this change, such as a reduction in workload, exclusion from regular management meetings for the firm, and the dismissal of her complaints and concerns regarding COVID-19 protocols in the office. This culminated in advising the Complainant on 19 November 2021 that she would be made redundant effective 17 December 2021.

The Complainant provided direct evidence in support of her claims. It was put to the Complainant that her concerns regarding COVID-19 safety were overblown, as the Complainant admitted that she had danced at a wedding only days after making her complaints regarding the COVID-19 safety of the Respondent premises. The Complainant’s evidence was supported in direct evidence by a former receptionist/legal secretary/legal assistant who was employed by the Respondent firm at the time of the alleged discriminatory acts and who alleged the Respondent solicitor had commented on the Complainant’s pregnancy and had instructed her to advise a client that the Complainant was on maternity leave when the Complainant was in fact no longer employed by the Respondent firm.

In response, the Respondent claimed that the COVID-19 pandemic had exerted significant financial pressures on the firm, requiring the Respondent to consult with their accountant for cost-saving measures, including a review of personnel and other areas which were adopted. The Respondent addressed the specific allegations made by the Complainant in turn, denying they in any way discriminated against the Complainant on the grounds alleged. The Respondent solicitor provided direct evidence to support these responses. It was put to the Respondent solicitor that after the termination of the Complainant another solicitor was hired by the firm shortly thereafter, which was accepted, but that this hire still resulted in lower overall costs to the firm.

Outcome:

The Adjudication Officer had regard to the well-established position in law that any dismissal of a pregnant person is sufficient to raise an inference of discrimination on the basis of gender (Wrights of Howth Seafood Bars Limited v Dorota Murat EDA1728). Having reviewed the evidence provided by the Respondent, the Adjudication Officer found that no genuine redundancy situation existed at the time of the Complainant’s dismissal, that the dismissal was tainted with discrimination, and the Respondent did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut the inference of discrimination which was present in the circumstances. The Adjudication Officer awarded the Complainant €30,000 as an award which was “effective, dissuasive and proportionate.”

Practical Guidance for Employers:

The dismissal of a pregnant employee, especially on alleged redundancy grounds, will always be treated with extreme scepticism by the WRC. This is not an absolute bar, but an extremely compelling case must be made to defend any allegation of discrimination arising from such a dismissal. Also, much was made in this case on the number of allegations made by the Complainant regarding COVID-19 protocols, and the fact these were even though the Complainant had admitted dancing at a wedding during this time. This allegation, while potentially embarrassing, did not impact the legal question being asked in the case, which was whether the employee was dismissed due to pregnancy or due to a redundancy. It is important to remain focused on the evidence in a case which squarely addresses the legal claim made against an employer.

The full case is here:

https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2023/june/adj-00038992.html