Background: 
This appeal by Ms. Veronica Dowling challenges the WRC Adjudication Officer's decision regarding her claims against An Post for discrimination based on age and disability, including allegations of victimisation and failure to provide reasonable accommodation. The Adjudication Officer found no prima facie case of discrimination concerning disability, victimisation, or reasonable accommodation. However, the Officer determined that Ms. Dowling had been discriminated against and harassed on the grounds of age, awarding her €1,000 in compensation.

The Complainant recounted an incident involving her supervisor, who made a comment about a Gilbert O’Sullivan song on the radio being "her vintage." She found the remark inappropriate and felt ridiculed by it. When she expressed her discomfort, the supervisor appeared unaware of how offensive the comment was, maintaining an attitude that such remarks were acceptable. She explained her feelings to him, emphasising that such comments were inappropriate in the workplace. The Complainant acknowledged that the supervisor apologised after she raised the issue and that she accepted his apology, considering the matter resolved at that time. However, a few weeks later, a separate, unrelated issue involving the same supervisor arose, which was linked to the subject of her appeal. She felt that this new issue was not adequately investigated. When questioned about her decision to appeal the Adjudication Officer’s ruling, the Complainant admitted she could not articulate a specific reason and emphasised that her appeal was not motivated by financial concerns.

The Respondent contended that the Complainant's appeal lacked clarity regarding its focus—whether it pertains to the adequacy of the compensation awarded for her successful harassment claim based on age or the Adjudication Officer's finding that she was not discriminated against on the grounds of age and/or disability. The Complainant alleged discrimination on the grounds of disability; however, there is no evidence of any prohibited act or unfavourable treatment linked to her disability. As the Adjudication Officer upheld her complaint of harassment on the grounds of age and awarded compensation, the Respondent did not cross-appealed that finding. The Respondent submitted that the compensation awarded was proportionate, given the nature of the comment and the supervisor’s immediate apology.

Finding:  
The Labour Court found no prima facie evidence to support the Complainant's claim of discrimination on the grounds of disability, and that aspect of the appeal was dismissed. Regarding the allegation of harassment on the grounds of age, the Court determined that the Complainant was subjected to unwanted conduct that violated her dignity and created an offensive work environment, meeting the definition of harassment under the Employment Equality Act. The Respondent's argument that the comment was made in a light-hearted manner was deemed irrelevant, as the impact on the Complainant was the key factor. The Court concluded that the Respondent was liable for the harassment, as it did not establish any defence under Section 14(2) of the Act by demonstrating reasonable steps to prevent or mitigate the effects of the harassment. The Court upheld the Adjudication Officer’s decision and awarded the Complainant €1,000 in compensation, which it deemed just and equitable under the circumstances.

Practical Guidance for Employers: