The Equality Tribunal published 7 decisions yesterday under the Employment Equality Acts, 3 of which were successful in whole or in part. These are reviewed below beginning as always with the successful cases.

EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY DECISIONS UPHELD OR PART UPHELD:

1. DEC-E2010 - 002 An Office Worker -v- A Security Company.

Ground/Issue: Gender - Sexual Harassment - Discriminatory Treatment - Harassment. Award: €45,000 for Discrimination and Sexual Harassment and other orders viewable on website

This dispute involved a claim by a complainant that she was discriminated against by the above named respondent on the gender ground, in that she was sexually harassed and harassed.

The complainant submitted that she started work with the respondent as a junior office assistant in March 2002 when she was 15 years old. She said that since the commencement of the employment Mr. A., who is the Managing Director of the company, had subjected her to offensive comments and treatment. Over the years the treatment got progressively worse. Mr. A would come into her office and make offensive comments to her, tell dirty jokes and touch her inappropriately. He hung a picture of a naked woman in her office and refused to take it down.

Mr. A. refused to provide any submission. He expressed his reluctance to cooperate with the investigation and hearing process. He said at the start of the hearing that he was not calling any witness because he was going to the Courts where he would call witnesses and clear his name. He expressed disregard for the Tribunal process.

The maximum compensation that can be award under the Act is 2 years pay which would amount to over €53, 000. Have taken matters into consideration (including the fact that the sexual harassment was continuous and ongoing since a very early stage in her employment, and created a degrading, humiliating and offensive work environment for the complainant resulting in her suffering from a stress related illness), the Equality Officer awarded €45,000.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2213


2. DEC-E2010-006 An Employee -v- A Government Department.

Ground/Issue: Sexual Orientation - Discriminatory Treatment - Victimisation. Award: €20,000 for Victimisation.

This dispute concerned a claim by Ms Patricia Cullen that she was subjected to discriminatory treatment by the Department of Foreign Affairs on the grounds of her sexual orientation. In addition, a claim of victimisation had been raised.

No direct discrimination was found but the complainant received a revised appraisal document after she had complained of discrimination. The Equality Officer said 'it is apparent that the complainant was in fact given a rating corresponding to "meets the requirements of the job/role" for the June document and that this was signed off by her manager. The 'revised' document presented to her for signature in September 2008 outlines a rating corresponding to "needs improvement - role holder has met some role requirements to required standard but performance has fallen short in some respects".'

He awarded the complainant €20,000.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2216


3. DEC-E2010-007 An Employee -v- A Limited Company.

Ground/Issue: Gender - Victimisation - Equal Pay - Discriminatory Treatment. Award: €55,000 for Victimisation and an order for equal pay.

This was an equal pay case, where the Equality Officer found that the complainant should receive back pay to 2003 AND €55,000 for victimisation.

In relation to the victimisation claim, the complainant's manager gave the complainant two low ratings despite reaching her targets following her complaint to him regarding her unequal remuneration. In direct evidence, her manager said he could not recall why he initially gave the complainant low ratings. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Equality Manager accepted the complainant’s contention that this was because she made a complaint to him regarding her unequal pay. Further, while the complainant was out on work-related stress leave there was a reshuffle of positions within Credit Management Division. However, only one position was advertised - that of the complainant. Responsibilities were taken away from the role yet the salary offered was higher than what the complainant earned.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2217


EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY DECISIONS NOT UPHELD:

4. DEC-E2010-001 An Employee -v- An Employer.

Ground/Issue: Disability - Discriminatory Treatment - Reasonable Accommodation - Equal Pay.

The complainant had an existing heart condition before starting with the employer in 2001. He argued he was discriminated against in that he received less pay than a female comparator. The respondent denied any discrimination and submitted that during 2005 the claimant was unfit 69% of the total working time and could not earn bonuses at the same levels as the comparator. Therefore he was not treated less favourably because of his disability but differently because he did not undertake his duties at work.

The equality Officer found that an appropriate comparator would have been someone else would had been absent for a significant period of time and either does not have a disability or has a different disability. The actual comparator was someone without a disability but who had not been absent for a significant period of time. The Equality Officer therefore found her to be an inappropriate comparator and the complainant was unable to establish a prima facie case in relation to his equal pay claim.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2209


5. DEC-E2010-003 An Employee -v- A Limited Company

Ground/Issue:Race - Discriminatory Treatment - Discriminatory Dismissal - Harassment.

The complainant was employed by the respondent as a General Operative between May, 2005 and July, 2006. He contended that during his period of employment he was (i) treated less favourably as regards his conditions of employment and (ii) harassed by the respondent on the basis of his Polish nationality contrary to the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 and 2004. He also contended that he was dismissed by the respondent in circumstances amounting to discrimination on grounds of race (Polish nationality) contrary to the Acts.

The case revolved around the word of a site foreman and the complainant. The complainant said he had been sacked, whereas the foreman said the employee had left the site early to go to a better job.

The complainant contended that he was called a "f****** Russian" on several occasions by colleagues and when he reported this to his Foreman he took no action. The complainant was however, unable to state when this alleged behaviour commenced or who perpetrators were. In the circumstances, the Equality Officer was not satisfied that the uncorroborated evidence of the complainant was sufficient to discharge the initial probative burden required of him and that aspect of his complainant had to fail.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2210


6. DEC-E2010-004 An Employee -v- A University.

Ground/Issue: Age - Discriminatory Treatment.

The complainant became an Associate Professor in 1999. He applied to become a full Professor on 12th January 2006 through Internal Pathway 4b. He was aged 61 at this time and due to retire at 65. Internal Pathway 4b was a promotion system brought in by the President of UCD to appoint Associate Professors to Full Professors based on personal academic merit. The promotion criteria for full Professorship were Research and Scholarship, Academic Leadership, Teaching and Learning and Contribution to the University and the wider Community. Applicants were required to submit an application form, teaching portfolio, list of publications, copies of five publications regarded by the applicant as the most significant since his last promotion and three external academic references. The complainant submitted that Question 8 on the application form is age-discriminatory. The question is:

"In this section of the form you should indicate the strategy, trajectory and goals you plan to achieve during the next five years and/or the balance of your career at UCD. This plan should include anticipated funding (if any) and/or should relate to the School College/University Strategic Plan where appropriate. This should not exceed three A4 pages."

The complainant had only 4 years left to retirement and considered the requirement to set out a five year plan discriminatory on the age ground. After analysing the statistical and other evidence the Equality Officer thought otherwise.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2214


7. DEC-E2010-005 An Employee -v- A Limited Company.

Ground/ Issue: Race - Discriminatory Treatment - Discriminatory Dismissal - Harassment.

This case was thrown out by the Equality Officer because the complainant failed to turn up or offer an explanation for his absence.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2215