Court of Appeal dismisses racial discrimination and victimisation appeal entirely.

The Complainant, a former software engineer with Cisco, brought proceedings under the Employment Equality Acts 1998–2011. He claimed they discriminated against him on the basis of race regarding his pay, promotion opportunities, and dismissal. Additionally, he alleged he was subjected to victimisation due to earlier complaints made during his employment. The Complainant contended that his remuneration was lower than that of three comparators of a different race, that he was overlooked for promotion throughout his tenure, and that the disciplinary process leading to his dismissal lacked fairness and transparency. He submitted that such treatment formed a pattern of systemic discrimination and victimisation over several years. Further, he argued that delays in his data access requests impeded his ability to file a timely complaint, constituting reasonable cause for an extension of time under section 77(5)(b) of the 1998 Act. He initially succeeded before a Rights Commissioner by default, but the Respondent appealed. Ultimately, he brought his case before the Labour Court, the High Court, and finally the Court of Appeal, maintaining that earlier decisions failed to account for the discriminatory nature of his treatment and the continuous nature of the alleged infractions.

The Respondent denied all claims of discrimination and victimisation. It asserted the dismissal followed a lawful disciplinary process arising from stated workplace issues, and that he was afforded full procedural fairness in accordance with internal policies. They argued that the disciplinary panel was independent, and the Complainant had every opportunity to respond to the allegations. Regarding remuneration, they stated that the identified comparators were in fact paid less during the relevant period, negating any claim of unequal pay. The Respondent also denied that any discriminatory acts occurred within the cognisable period under the Employment Equality Acts. They contended that the Appellant Complainant failed to present evidence establishing a causal link between his race and any adverse treatment or decision. It maintained difficulties in obtaining documentation under data access requests did not constitute reasonable cause to extend the six-month limitation period. Further, it rejected the contention that acts prior to the cognisable period formed part of a continuous discriminatory regime. The Respondent highlighted that the Labour Court had engaged in a de novo hearing and made findings of fact within its jurisdiction. It asked that the appeal be dismissed, affirming that no breach of equality legislation occurred.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the findings of the Labour Court and the High Court. It held the appellant Complainant failed to establish any error of law warranting judicial intervention. The Court noted that while the Employment Equality Acts permit an extension of the six-month time limit to twelve months for “reasonable cause”, he had not demonstrated that delays in receiving data under the Data Protection Acts had a causal connection with the delay in filing his claim. The Court upheld the Labour Court’s approach to evaluating the claim within the relevant cognisable period and declined to treat earlier incidents as part of a continuum of discrimination. It further found no primary facts from which discrimination could be inferred, nor any substantiated that comparators were paid more or that any procedural irregularity in his dismissal was racially motivated. The claim of unequal treatment in promotion was also unsupported within the relevant period. The Court rejected the suggestion that retrospective application of the 2015 Act had occurred and refused the request to refer questions to the CJEU. The appeal was found to be without merit, and all grounds were dismissed with costs provisionally awarded to the Respondent.

Employers should ensure all disciplinary, promotional, and remuneration decisions are transparently documented and grounded in objective, race-neutral criteria. Fair procedures and impartial decision-making panels are essential to mitigating discrimination claims. Keep detailed records of actions taken and reasons underpinning employment decisions. Respond promptly and comprehensively to data access requests, as delays can be invoked as procedural objections. Ensure comparators in equal pay claims are appropriately identified and contextualised. Adhering closely to the Employment Equality Acts and internal procedures will reduce the risk of litigation.

The full case can be found here:
https://www.courts.ie/view/judgments/a88a73fb-1ee1-41b4-951e-9ed2cf3a9856/fbb744f9-a7ee-40c1-a49a-42fbc504ebcc/2025_IECA_6.pdf/pdf