The Equality Tribunal recently published 34 decisions under the Employment Equality Acts, 8 of which were successful in whole or in part. The largest award was €25000 in an equal pay case based on the race ground.


EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY DECISIONS UPHELD OR PART-UPHELD:


1. DEC-E2010 -090 Mrs X -v- A Nursing Home

Grounds/Issue: Discriminatory dismissal, Disability, Reasonable Accommodation.
Award: €12,500 for Discriminatory Dismissal

The complainant, Mrs. X, was employed by the respondent as a cleaner on a part-time basis (for 14 hours per week) from May, 2003 until her employment was terminated on 16th July, 2007. The complainant stated that she has epilepsy and that she made the respondent fully aware of her condition prior to her commencement of employment. The complainant stated that she provided the respondent with a letter from her General Practitioner which certified her medically fit to undertake the duties as a cleaner prior to taking up this employment. The complainant stated that her epilepsy did not adversely affect her ability to carry out her duties and she claimed that there were only two occasions during the course of her employment when she was unable to attend for work as a result of her medical condition.

The complainant stated that she suffered a "petit mal" epileptic seizure while at work on 14th July, 2007 as a result of being overcome by the fumes from a varnishing lacquer which had been applied to the floors in the day room on the previous day. The complainant stated that she was taken home from work on this occasion by Mr. C (the husband of one of the partners who comprise the respondent) and was told by him to take the following day off work. The complainant stated that this was only the second occasion that she had to be taken home from work during the course of her employment with the respondent as a result of her epilepsy.

The complainant stated that Ms. A, Managing Partner of the respondent, called to her home on the following Monday morning, 16th July, 2007 and informed her that she was being made redundant as the Nursing Home was making cutbacks and as a result it no longer required the services of two cleaners.

The respondent stated that the complainant applied for a position as a care assistant in April, 2003, however she was deemed unsuitable for this position on account of her epilepsy and having regard to the risk of seizures and the likely dangerous consequences for patients. The respondent stated that the complainant became very upset upon being informed that she was unsuitable for the position as a care assistant so it was decided to offer her "a few hours therapeutic work per week" as a cleaner in the nursing home. The respondent stated that the complainant was offered this position on the basis that she was certified fit to carry out this work by her General Practitioner and that she would not use any electrical appliances during the course of her work.

Ms. A stated that she discussed this matter with her business partner, Ms. B, and it was decided to make the complainant redundant on the basis that they could no longer provide the required level of staffing to monitor her whilst she was carrying out her duties.

That was not acceptable to the Equality Officer, who awarded €12,500 for the distress of the discriminatory dismissal.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2340

2. DEC-E2010-092 An Employee -v- A Company.

Grounds/Issue: Race, Equal Pay.
Award: €25,000 for Discrimination.

The complainant submitted that he worked as an articulated truck driver for the respondent from 21 May 2001 until 30 March 2005 and that he carried out the same work or work of equal value to the two named comparators, Mr Gary Grant, who was a rigid vehicle driver, and Mr Ger Meade, who was an articulated truck driver. He was initially paid €6.35 per hour, 1.25 hours per day were deducted for travel from his home, where the lorry was left by a colleague, to the workplace; even though he started 50% of the trips from his home and not the workplace. Also, 2 hours were deducted each day for breaks even though he only took a maximum of 1 hour.

The respondent submitted that the complainant was recruited from the Philippines and he had a lengthy learning curve when he started work in order to become familiar with the work, the routes and in communicating. Hence he was started on a different pay rate than other articulated vehicle drivers already working for them. It was intended that the pay would be equalised when his performance reached the required level. However the complainant never reached that level of 12 deliveries and revenue of €750 per day. They submitted evidence which showed that in September 2004 the complainant was doing an average of 9.1 deliveries per day earning a revenue of €533 per day, whilst other articulated truck drivers were earning an average revenue of €724 per day. Drivers of rigid vehicles were earning an average revenue of €639 per day.

The Equality Officer did not accept the employer's arguments. The only evidence produced by the respondent was a single sheet purporting to show average daily revenue produced by each vehicle for September 2004. When requested by the Tribunal the respondent declined to produce any more documents for the remainder of the complainant's employment. In these circumstances the Equality Officer could not take the evidence produced to be persuasive and awarded €25K.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2341

3. DEC-E2010--94 An Employee -v- An Employer.
Grounds / Issues: Gender, Maternity, Discriminatory Treatment, Equal Pay.
Award: €16,000

The complainant stated that she worked for the respondent from March, 1999 until May, 2008 in a variety of positions. She contended that she was employed as Manufacturing Purchasing Manager from June, 2004, initially on a job-sharing basis but on a full-time basis from February, 2007. She stated that things began to deteriorate after she notified the respondent of her pregnancy in April, 2007 culminating in her resigning from her employment on 12 May, 2008.

The complainant stated she suggested to Mr. Pullin (who was Head of Operations and located in USA) that the respondent should recruit someone to cover her maternity absence. She added that Mr. Pullin instructed her to contact recruitment agencies to advertise the position and to arrange interviews for suitable candidates for the last week of June. The complainant stated that the interviews were conducted as planned and when she asked Mr. Pullin how things had gone he replied that he was not impressed with the candidates and asked her to conduct any other interviews if the need arose.

The complainant stated that no further interviews took place and the Office Supervisor was instructed by Mr. Pullin (on 3 July, 2007) to recruit Mr. X (the complainant's comparator) on a salary which exceeded that of the complainant by €4k per annum. The complainant stated that it had been her understanding that Mr. X was to be recruited to cover the period of her maternity absence however, following a discussion with the Office Supervisor, it was clear to her that he was being appointed on a full-time basis.

The respondent accepted that the complainant was asked to assist in the recruitment of a suitable replacement for her when she was absent on maternity leave. It added that at first it was envisaged the replacement would only be for the specific period of maternity cover but that after the selection process the respondent decided to recruit Mr. X, not solely as a replacement for the complainant's maternity leave but also to take on additional operational duties during that period, with a view to transferring to other duties on her return. He was well-qualified.

The main downfall for the employer is that they did not allow the complainant to return to her previous duties - Mr. X held onto a number of them. The Equality Officer had some advice that all employers could heed:

"Whatever the respondent's intentions the fact remains that the complainant had an entitlement following her maternity leave to return to the post she held immediately before she commenced that leave or a suitable alternative. In the course of the Hearing the complainant identified elements of the tasks which she had performed previously which were now assigned to Mr. X and another colleague and I accept her evidence on this point. The respondent states that Mr. X was to transfer to other duties on her return but did not do so because he was needed as cover as the complainant had annual leave to take and was to undergo training on processes which had been introduced in her absence. It adds that Mr. Ailts preferred to discuss the restructuring of the organisation which had occurred during her absence "face to face" when he was in the Dublin Branch during the week of the complainant's return to work. However laudable this is, it may well have been prudent for the respondent to give the complainant advance notice of how things stood, particularly as she had made a specific reference to same in her notification of her return to work in her e-mail of 16 January, 2008 and had been given an assurance that would happen by the respondent's CEO a few days later."

She awarded €16,000 by way of compensation for the distress suffered and the effects of the discrimination.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2342

4. DEC-E2010-095 Ms B -v- A Leisure Company

Grounds / Issues: Gender, Training, Conditions of Employment, Discriminatory Dismissal, Harassment, Sexual Harassment, Victimisation.
Award: €18,000 for Discrimination, Harassment and Discriminatory Dismissal.

The complainant started working for the respondent on 28 February 2007 as manager in their playhouse. She submitted that the General Manager (who was also a Director) made sexual advances to her from the second day of her employment when he said that he "needed sex" with her and he continued to make these demands nearly every day. He also said that that she would have to have sex with him and that she would not have obtained the job had it not been for him. He also suggested that they go out for a drink together on a number of occasions. When she rejected these advances he made her working environment intolerable. She was warned that she would be dismissed if she didn't follow his rules. She considered her best approach was that if worked hard and performed to the best of her ability the General Manager's behaviour would be addressed by the company and they would see how she was being treated.

The GM denied all of these allegations but there was no hard evidence either way and the Equality Officer considered the credibility of the witnesses in the light of evidence given in relation to other matters. In particular, the EO considered contradictions in oral evidence given by the employer in relation to the dismissal of the employee. Although the EO came down on the side of the complainant on only some of the complaints, he awarded €18K (equivalent to one year's salary) for the distress experienced by the complainant.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2343

5. DEC-E2010-096 An Employee -v-An Employer.

Grounds/Issue: Discrimination, Gender, Pregnancy.
Award: €20,000 for Discriminatory Dismissal

The complainant submitted that she started working for the respondent in November 2004. In September 2006, the complainant went on maternity leave. When she contacted the respondent on 17 May 2007 in anticipation of returning to work on 21 May 2007, she was informed that the respondent was not sure whether there was work. When the complainant contacted the respondent again on 21 May 2007, she was told that the respondent would not take her back because they had somebody else. When the complainant called to the respondent's premises on 22 May 2007, she saw another person doing her job. The complainant was informed that her replacement was very good and that she would not be taken back.

According to the respondent, the complainant expressed the wish not to return to work, because she did not wish to leave her newborn daughter in the care of her husband.

The Equality Officer did not accept the contention of the respondent:

"I do not accept that a conversation in which the complainant may have expressed misgivings about leaving her young child, or concerns about childcare arrangements, constitute a resignation from her employment with the respondent." €20K was awarded (equivalent to one year and 8 months' salary).
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2344

6. DEC-E2010-098 An Employee -v- An Employer

Grounds/Issue: Discrimination, Race, Conditions of Employment, Harassment.
Award: €6,000 for Harassment.

The complainant, who is an Zimbabwean national, submitted that he was employed as a security guard and started work with the respondent in October 2002. He was employed to guard construction sites and demolition sites in various areas in Dublin. He worked the night shift from 8pm to 8am up to 7 nights per week and the respondent usually texted him with the instruction as regards his work location. The complainant submitted in evidence a number of complaints regarding his conditions of employment and health and safety issues. He said that he was posted to work on a demolition sites which usually had no security hut or shelter, no heating, toilet, or facilities to eat his food. Some of the sites had no lighting. The complainant said that he purchased a car so that he could use it on sites where there was no security hut. The respondent promised to pay him for petrol once he provided receipts, but he failed to do so. On one site he was attacked and his car was destroyed by the intruder. The respondent promised to pay for the repair of the car but he refused to pay it when the complainant produced the estimate of €5,000 to have it repaired. He said that the respondent made allegations about the manner in which he carried out his duties and on one occasion he accused him of being asleep on a site and refused to pay him for 50 hours worked that week. He also submitted that the respondent constantly delayed paying him his wages and on some occasions had to wait for weeks to get paid and that the respondent made racist remarks.

The respondent did not respond to the complainant's submission and neither did he attend the hearing. The EO awarded €6000 compensation.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2345

7. DEC-E2010-105 An Employee -v- An Employer

Grounds / Issues: Gender, Race, Discrimination, Training, Conditions of Employment, Discriminatory Dismissal.
Award: €5,000 for Discriminatory Treatment.

The complainant is Lithuanian and said she was employed by the respondent as a shop assistant from 1 December 2007 to 24 December 2007. She complained that she did not receive a contract of employment, payslips, or health and safety training. She complained that she was dismissed without reasons or procedures.

The respondent submitted a written response but did not attend the hearing. With regard to the complainant's claim of discriminatory dismissal, the respondent stated that her employment was terminated because she was unsuitable for the role which she performed, and that she wanted to work only hours that suited herself.

The Equality Officer found that the employee was not dismissed because of her nationality. Nor was she dismissed because of her performance but, rather, because she was a seasonal worker and her work would have ended after the Christmas rush. There were no suitable comparable workers and the EQ compared her position with a hypothetical Irish seasonal worker:

"I am satisfied that a hypothetical Irish seasonal employee would have been advised that his or her employment was temporary and would come to an end with the end of the pre-Christmas peak selling season.

I therefore find that the complainant has established a prima facie case of less favourable treatment on the ground of her nationality, regarding the manner in which she was not properly advised of a very basic aspect of the terms and conditions of her employment with respondent, and that the respondent would not have omitted this information with an Irish employee employed in the same role."

€5000 was awarded against the respondent in compensation for the discriminatory treatment. The award reflected the seriousness of not clarifying the prospective length of her employment to the complainant, which is a basic element of any contract of employment.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2346

8. DEC-E2010-116 An Employee -v- An Employer

Grounds / Issues: Race, Harassment.
Award: €5,000 for Harassment.

The complainant is English and works for the respondent in the role of fire fighter. He submitted that between 2002 and 2004, a number of incidents occurred at work, and during a training course he was attending, that show he was less favourably treated than colleagues because of him being English. He further submitted that in September 2006, he received an anonymous racist note in his locker, which could only have come from within the fire station. It is the complainant's contention that in this instance, the respondent failed to protect him from this type of harassment.

The complainant asked for and was granted a transfer request to another station. The racist behaviour towards him stopped after that but the Equality Officer found the "the Chief Fire Officer's failure to insist on an investigation, in contravention of the very clear obligations which the respondent's anti-harassment policy places on staff members of his level of seniority, amounts to a failure to take steps as are reasonably practicable to prevent the complainant's harassment, and that therefore, the defence under S. 14(2) of the Acts cannot avail the respondent." €5000 was awarded.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2347


EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY DECISIONS NOT UPHELD:

9. DEC-E2010-085 An Employee -v- An Employer

Grounds/Issue: Discrimination, Harassment, Race.

The complainant failed to turn up at hearing or provide evidence and the Equality Officer found against the complainant.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2348

10. DEC-E2010-086 An Employee -v- An Employer

Grounds/Issue: Discriminatory Dismissal, Race.

The complainant was Latvian and her first language Russian. She was not provided with documentation in Russian but the complainant had a translation service available to her and the documentation was explained to her in her first language which is Russian. The Equality Officer was satisfied from the evidence that the complainant's level of English was sufficient to understand the documentation and training provided to her.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2349

11. DEC-E2010-087 An Employee -v- An Employer

Ground/Issue: Race , Discriminatory Treatment.

The complainants failed to attend Equality Officer found against the complainants.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2350

12.DEC-E2010-088 An Employee -v- An Employer

Grounds/ Issue: Discriminator, Race, Conditions of Employment.

http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2351

13. DEC-E2010-089 An Employee -v- An Employer

Grounds / Issues: Discrimination, Disability, Race, Harassment, Conditions of Employment.

The complainant was a Latvian national employed as a cleaner. In December 2006 she attended her doctor and she was diagnosed with high blood pressure. Her doctor gave her a letter indicating that night shifts was having an impact on her health and that it would be helpful to her health if she could do day shifts. The complainant gave the doctors note to her supervisor and requested a transfer to a day shift. She said that her supervisor was not pleased. She was told that if she transferred to a day shift she would be on less wages. The supervisor told her that there was a vacancy in the clean room which was a specialist area. She was required to have good English and would have to do training. Her rate of pay would be the same as the night shift pay. The complainant commenced working in the clean room in January 2007. She said that she did not receive training and that the other cleaner (Ms. A) who was a Lithuanian national refused to show her the routine in the clean room despite the fact that she had experience working there. She kept asking her why she was working in the clean room. The complainant said that she was nervous because she was put under pressure by Ms A. She said that she did not get on with Ms. A who she said insulted and harassed her and commented to her about her age and suggested that she should not work there because of her age. The complainant said that she complained to the assistant manager about this treatment but he did not respond.

The respondent said that the staff the respondent allocated to clean room areas are required to partake in a six week specialised training programme. They were also required to have a good standard of English because they have to communicate with the staff in the pharmaceutical company and answer questions about the cleaning procedures. The Assistant Manager outlined the strict cleaning procedures which had to be adhered to and the mixing of cleaning chemicals in the clean room area and also the training of staff. These areas required very specialised cleaning in order to avoid any contamination. There was also a very strict record keeping requirement and cleaners were required to complete log books on completion of cleaning tasks. He said that they were very aware of the very high standards of cleaning required in this area and if the record of the cleaning carried out could not be verified it could result in batches of drugs having to be destroyed and this could impact on the respondent's contract with the pharmaceutical company.

The contracts manager said that it had come to her attention from the trainer in the specialised area that the complainant's English was not up to the standard required in this area. A number of communication problems arose including problems completing log books. She called a meeting with the complainant and her supervisor. She advised the complainant that she was removing her from the clean room to an unclassified area, which did not attract a premium rate of pay for a period of three months to give her an opportunity to improve her English to a competent level. The contracts manager said that she told her that she would endeavour to have her reinstated back in the clean room if she achieved the required competency in English. They were informed by the complainant that she had undertaken language training but when the company tested her again her English was still not up to standard.

The Equality Officer noted that the respondent made every effort to accommodate the complainant on a shift other than a night shift and the only shift which had a premium rate was in the clean room. She was satisfied that a standard of English was a requirement to work in this specialised area and that the complainant did not meet this standard. The claims fell.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2352

14. DEC-E2010-091 An Employee -v- An Employer

Grounds/Issue: Discriminatory Treatment, Harassment, Race.

The complainant's failure to attend a hearing was unreasonable and the Equality Officer found against the complainant.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2353

15. DEC-E2010-093 An Employee -v- An Employer

Grounds / Issues: Age, Discriminatory Treatment, Promotions.

The complainant stated that he applied for promotion to the position of Associate Professor in University College Dublin (UCD) in January, 2006 through Internal Promotions Pathway 4A - an evidence based selection process in which candidates were assessed across four pre-determined criteria as follows - (i) Research and Scholarship, (ii) Academic Leadership, (iii) Teaching and Learning and (iv) Contribution to the University and Wider Community. Applicants were generally required to have a minimum of five years' service at Senior Lecturer level. Candidates were required to furnish an application form, list of publications, teaching portfolio, copies of five publications regarded by the candidate as the most significant since his/her last promotion (in addition to his/her single most significant publication to date, if not included her) and three external academic referee reports. The complainant stated that he was the oldest of all candidates who submitted an application for promotion and submits that he was well qualified for promotion. He further contended, in particular, that he was better qualified than twelve named comparators (details supplied) who work in disciplines closely related to his. The respondent rejected the complainant's assertions in their entirety.

The Equality Officer found the complainant had established a prima facie case of discrimination on grounds of age. However, the respondent provided rebuttal evidence and one witness was particularly credible and persuasive. The EO could not conclude that the process as outlined was tainted by discrimination.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2354

16. DEC-E2010-097 An Employee -v- An Employer

Ground/Issue: Gender, Access to Employment, Conditions of Employment, Victimisation.

This dispute concerned a complaint by Mr Paul Cotter against Cork College of Commerce which is run by City of Cork Vocational Education Committee. He had several complaints, all unsuccessful.

In relation to one, Mr Cotter claimed that he was discriminated on the grounds of gender because a woman with fewer qualifications in legal studies than him obtained more teaching hours. Mr Cotter raised an inference of discrimination. However, the respondent pointed out that Ms B is sufficiently qualified to teach Law subjects within the meaning of Circular 32/92. Ms B was also a permanent full-time employee while Mr Cotter was employed under a part-time Contract of Indefinite Duration. That a full-time female employee appears to have been treated more favourably regarding the allocation of teaching hours seemed to be the essence of Mr Cotter's complaint rather than a gender discrimination complaint. The Equality Officer has no jurisdiction under the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001.Therefore, she found that the respondent had rebutted this inference of discrimination on the ground of gender regarding conditions of employment.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2355

17. DEC-E2010-099 An Employee -v- An Employer

Grounds / Issues: Race, Discriminatory Treatment, Harassment, Conditions of Employment.

The complainant failed to establish the necessary prima facie case of discrimination and his complaint therefore failed.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2356

18. DEC-E2010-100 An Employee -v- An Employer

Grounds/Issues: Race, Discriminatory Treatment, Discriminatory Dismissal.

The complainant's failure to attend a hearing was unreasonable and the Equality Officer found against the complainant.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2357

19. DEC-E2010-101 An Employee -v- An Employer

Grounds/Issues: Discriminatory Dismissal, Gender.

The complainant failed to establish the necessary prima facie case of discrimination and her complaint therefore failed.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2358

20. DEC-E2010-102 An Employee -v- An Employer

Grounds/ Issues: Discrimination, Race.

The complainant's failure to attend a hearing was unreasonable and the Equality Officer found against the complainant.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2359

21. DEC-E2010-103 An Employee -v- An Employer

Grounds/ Issues: Race, Training, Conditions of Employment, Discriminatory Dismissal.

The complainant was recruited as an agency worker.

The respondent submitted it is a recruitment agency who advertised for people in Russian language newspapers in Ireland. A job service training fee of €1000 was to give all recruits the skills they needed to work; English language training, social skills, interview skills and assistance in applying for jobs. The respondent submitted that the company where the complainant was placed stopped paying them and they were therefore unable to pay the complainant. This was the same for all people placed with that company. They offered the complainant work as a cleaner but she declined the offer.

The Equality Officer found that the respondent did not recruit or place any Irish workers but it did place workers from countries other than Lithuania and it is these workers who are the correct comparators in this claim. As the complainant failed to adduce any evidence that she was treated any differently than a worker from another country both in relation to her conditions of employment or in relation to her alleged discriminatory dismissal the EO found that she had failed to prove a prima facie case in relation to both.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2360

22. DEC-E2010-104 An Employee -v- An Employer

Ground/Issues: Conditions of Employment, Time Limits.

The claim was not lodged in accordance with the time limits provided for in section 77 (5) of the Acts and the Equality Officer therefore has no jurisdiction to investigate the claims.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2361

23. DEC-E2010-106 An Employee -v- An Employer

Grounds/Issues: Discriminatory Treatment, Discriminatory Dismissal, Victimisation, Race.

The complainant's failure to attend a hearing was unreasonable and the Equality Officer found against the complainant.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2362

24. DEC-E2010-107 An Employee -v- An Employer

Grounds/ Issues: Gender, Race, Access to Employment, Conditions of Employment.

In relation to the respondent not acceding to his request to reduce his hours of teaching Security subjects, the complainant had not linked this treatment to either gender or race. He also failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the grounds of gender or race in relation to his conditions of employment.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2363

25. DEC-E2010-108 An Employee -v- An Employer

Grounds / Issues: Gender, Family Status, Marital Status. Promotion, Victimisation.

This is a complex claim involving appointments and transfers to other posts and a claim of victimisation because the claimant was refused entry to the Christmas parties. She alleged it was because she had made a complaint but the Equality Officer concluded it was because she was on sick leave. The claims fell.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2364

26. DEC-E2010-109 An Employee -v- An Employer

Grounds/ Issues: Gender, Age, Promotion.

The complainant was unable to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the grounds of age.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2365

27. DEC-E2010-110 An Employee -v- An Employer

Grounds / Issues: Gender, Age, Promotion.

The complainant was unable to establish a prime facie case of victimisation.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2366

28. DEC-E2010-111 An Employee -v- An Employer

Grounds / Issues: Access to Employment, Race.

The complainant failed to raise a prima facie case of discrimination on the ground of race in terms of the respondent's decision that his application did not satisfy the relevant qualification criteria for the position of Sports Development Officer.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2367

29. DEC-E2010-112 An Employee -v- An Employer

Grounds/Issues: Race, Discriminatory Treatment, Harassment, Conditions of Employment.

The complainant's failure to attend a hearing was unreasonable and the Equality Officer found against the complainant.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2368

30. DEC-E2010-113 An Employee -v- An Employer

Grounds/ Issues: Discriminatory Treatment, Race.

The complainant was unable to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the ground of race.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2369

31. DEC-E2010-115 . An Employee -v- An Employer

Grounds / Issues: Discriminatory Treatment, Conditions of Employment, Promotion.

The Equality Officer said in this case:

"Both Equality Officers of this Tribunal and the Labour Court has held on many previous occasions that it is not our role to examine whether the most meritorious candidate was successful in a promotion process, rather it is our role to examine and decide whether or not the selection process is tainted by discrimination - in this case age. In light of my comments in the preceding paragraphs I am satisfied that the respondent had rebutted the inference of discrimination raised and I find that the respondent did not discriminate against the complainant contrary to the Acts."
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2370

32. DEC-E2010-117 3 Employees -v- An Employer

Grounds / Issues: Discriminatory Treatment, Race, Conditions of Employment, Discriminatory Dismissal.

The complainants failed to raise a prima facie case of discrimination on the ground of race.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2371

33. DEC-E2010-118 An Employee -v- An Employer

Grounds / Issues: Disability, Discriminatory Treatment, Reasonable Accommodation.

The complainant's failure to attend a hearing was unreasonable and the Equality Officer found against the complainant.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2372

34. DEC-E2010-119 An Employee -v- An Employer

Grounds / Issues: Race, Discriminatory Treatment, Conditions of Employment, Hypothetical Comparator.

The Equality Officer found that find that the complainants failed to establish facts from which it could be inferred that a hypothetical Irish employee would have been treated differently than them in the circumstances and their complaints therefore failed, notwithstanding the n on-appearance of the respondent.
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2373