This complaint was originally lodged on the family status ground.  The Equality Officer stated that claims relating to pregnancy are relevant to the gender ground.

The complainant was employed on a six month probationary contract for 20 hours per week with an hourly rate and the facility to earn commission on the sale of products and treatments.  The complainant asserted that shortly after she started working she informed her employer that she was pregnant with twins.  According to the Decision the parties dispute the start and end dates of her probationary period.  The complainant asserts she started on 10 March 2010 while the respondent asserted that she started on 15 February 2010.  Her probationary period was extended by three months.  The respondent stated that this was a result of her poor sales performance.  The complainant asserts that she requested training on Guinot facial products before Christmas and although she was told there was nothing before then another  employee who started after the complainant did the training.  The complainant undertook training that required a 70% to pass and she failed this twice.  She and another colleague received a verbal written warning.

The Equality Officer accepted that complaints relating to pregnancy are appropriate to the gender ground rather than family status.  He noted that there had been an EAT hearing and determination on a claim of unfair dismissal of the complainant.  When this was raised with the complainant she withdrew her claim of discriminatory dismissal.

The respondent, now in voluntary liquidation, previously sent in a written submission and this was considered by the Equality Officer.  He also accepted the complainant’s assertion that the only reason she was not given the Guinot training was because she was pregnant and this was uncontroverted by the respondent’s written submission.  On that basis he found that this amounts to discriminatory treatment in relation to training.  He concluded that the ending of a probationary period and the making of someone permanent does not amount to promotion and found that the complainant had not established a prima facie case of discrimination in respect of promotion.

In respect of the equal pay claim made by the complainant, that by not being trained on Guinot facial products the complainant was unable to earn commission from them.  However, the comparator had sold 135 treatments (15 Guinot) while the complainant sold 57.  When this was put to the complainant she could not disagree with the figures and the Equality Officer found that the complainant was unable to establish facts to support her claim of discrimination in respect of equal pay.

The complainant was awarded €4,000 for the discrimination in respect of training.

Why is this case of interest?