What happened?
The complainant began work as a supervising pharmacist in November 2024 and, on her account, was managing her team well through a busy Christmas period, receiving positive feedback from the business owner. She disclosed her pregnancy on 18 February 2025. She said that within five weeks her treatment at work changed: she faced increased scrutiny, an external consultant was brought in to assess her performance, and she was asked to accept a demotion and a pay cut. When she declined the demotion, she was dismissed on 28 March 2025. 

The hearing
The WRC decision details that the respondent had been on notice of the complaints since May 2025 and its representative came on record that month, but no written response or submissions were filed before the hearing. On the day of the hearing, the representative telephoned the WRC around 15 minutes beforehand to say he could not attend due to a family issue and that he would be seeking an adjournment. WRC staff asked him to attend the hearing to make that application. The AO delayed the start of the hearing by 15 minutes before proceeding to hear the case in the respondent's absence in line with normal procedures. 

This meant the AO's findings were based solely on the complainant's evidence, which he found credible, and the caselaw cited. In particular, the AO referred to the Labour Court's decision in Intrium Justicia v McGarvey for the proposition that only the most exceptional circumstances, unconnected with the pregnancy, can justify a dismissal during pregnancy, along with the ECJ's rulings in Dekker and Brown v Rentokil to the same effect.

As no evidence was before the AO addressing this point, there was nothing to displace the presumption of discrimination, and the AO found that the complainant had been discriminatorily dismissed on grounds of her pregnancy. It is worth noting that this was not a case where the AO weighed two competing accounts and preferred one; rather, in the absence of any evidence from the respondent, the AO's decision was necessarily confined to the picture presented by the complainant.

Key Takeaways for Employers

Burden of Proof
By way of reminder, in a claim under the Employment Equality Acts, the burden of proof is on the complainant to establish a ‘prima facie’ case of discrimination. Once a prima facie case of discrimination has been proven, the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent to prove that there was no discrimination. 

This case highlights that in a claim for pregnancy related dismissal, reaching the threshold of a prima facie case of discrimination is relatively straightforward. As the AO noted in this case, it is sufficient for a complainant to establish that: 
(i) she was pregnant, and 
(ii) a dismissal occurred to shift the burden of proof to the respondent. 
Once the complainant can demonstrate these two facts, it is then up to the respondent to prove ‘exceptional circumstances’ unrelated to the complainant’s pregnancy to explain her dismissal. 

In that regard, employers considering performance management, conducting a restructuring or redundancy process or any other process involving a pregnant employee which could potentially lead to termination of employment should ensure the process is well-documented, clearly unconnected to the pregnancy, and capable of being evidenced if challenged. 

Compensation as a deterrent
In assessing compensation, the AO applied the ECJ's decision in Von Colson v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, which requires that compensation for discrimination act as a real and effective deterrent, and the Labour Court's reasoning in Nolan v Gino's Italian Ice Cream Ltd, which draws on Paquay v Société d'architectes Hoet + Minne to the same effect. Having regard to the complainant's salary of approximately €100,000, the AO considered €50,000 to be an appropriate award. 

This case serves as a helpful reminder to employers that deterrent value is attributed to awards made under the Employment Equality Acts. These awards are designed to discourage repeat conduct and can be significant. Awards under the Employment Equality Acts are not capped by reference to financial loss in the way statutory unfair dismissal awards can be, and deterrent value is part of how compensation is assessed. 

Engagement with the WRC
Finally, this decision also illustrates the practical importance of engaging fully with the WRC process. The WRC has specific procedures on requesting a postponement or adjournment and written submissions which parties to a hearing are expected to follow. The case is a reminder to employers that a hearing can proceed, and a decision can issue, without the respondent in attendance. This is particularly important in these types of cases given how readily the burden of proof shifts once dismissal during pregnancy is established. 

A related development: the Pregnancy Loss Leave Bill
Separately, HR teams should be aware of the recently published General Scheme of the Pregnancy Loss Leave Bill, which proposes a new standalone statutory leave entitlement for pregnancy loss occurring before 23 weeks' gestation.

The proposed Bill would provide five days' paid leave per year for pregnancy loss, subject to medical certification. The right to take the leave would apply from day one of employment, while the right to payment would carry a 13-week service requirement. 

The proposal follows the PLACES report from the Pregnancy Loss Research Group at University College Cork, which found that pre-viability pregnancy loss, despite affecting a significant proportion of pregnancies, is often treated as a private matter with little formal workplace acknowledgement. 

While only a General Scheme at this stage, employers should begin considering how such an entitlement would sit alongside existing sick leave, compassionate leave and maternity-related policies.

This article was provided by:

Sarah Linehan

EY Law Ireland
Harcourt Street, Dublin 2, Ireland
Office: 01-4750555  
Email: Sarah.Linehan@ie.ey.com
Website: www.ey.com