In a recent decision of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), an Adjudication Officer  awarded €85,000 in compensation to a teacher who was found to have been discriminated against during a recruitment process. The case, brought under Irish equality legislation, highlights the risks employers face when interview practices stray into protected territory. Below, the Employment Team from EY Law Ireland outlines the basis for the award and offers practical guidance for HR professionals, including upcoming changes under the EU Pay Transparency Directive.

What happened in Williams v Board of Management St. Tola’s NS?
Ms Williams (the “Complainant”) was employed as a teacher by St. Tola’s National School (the “School”) from September 2022 to August 2024 on two fixed term contracts.  In February 2024, she commenced a period of maternity leave. Later that June (whilst still on maternity leave), she interviewed for a further fixed-term role. The Complainant alleged that she was discriminated against on the grounds of family status during the interview process. 

The interview process
According to the Complainant, she was asked a range of questions by the interviewers. She gave evidence to say that, at the end of the interview, the School principal asked her about her baby and told her she should enjoy every minute at home with the baby. The Complainant told the WRC that she was caught off guard with this comment as it alerted other board members to the fact that she was on maternity leave. The following day the Complainant received an email to say that she was not successful. 

As part of her submission, the Complainant also pointed to two comparators - Comparator A and B - noting that:
 

In short, the Complainant submitted that she was treated less favourably than others because of her family status, that she was overlooked and discriminated against for future teaching roles in the School as she was on maternity leave and not present in the school.

WRC Findings
In reaching her decision, the Adjudicator noted that:

• Comparator advantage during maternity leave: A CID was awarded to Comparator A while the Complainant was commencing maternity leave. According to the School, that award was based on the order of merit in a previous fixed-term competition. The Adjudicator found that no satisfactory explanation was provided for prioritising Comparator A based on previous competition results.
• Inappropriate interview comment: The School principal made a comment referencing the Complainant’s family status during the interview for a fixed-term role. No similar comment was made to Comparator B, who had a different family status.
• Timing and impact: The comment occurred before scoring and may have influenced the outcome of the competition.
• Failure to justify scoring: The School provided no evidence explaining how interview scores were determined, despite Comparator B having less experience than the Complainant. The absence of such evidence was deemed fatal to rebutting the inference of discrimination.

Substantial award
Readers will recall that, as a general rule, to succeed in an equality claim, a complainant must first establish a prima facie, or arguable, case of discriminatory treatment before the burden of proof shits and a respondent is required to disprove discrimination has occurred. 

In the present case, the WRC found that the School failed to rebut the prima facie case of discrimination under the Employment Equality Acts. In making an award of €85,000, the Adjudicator had regard to a number of principles derived from European caselaw, in particular that where a Member State chooses to provide a legal remedy (such as compensation) for a breach of EU law, that remedy must be ‘adequate’ and have a ‘deterrent effect’. 

This decision underscores that even subtle comments during interviews can amount to discrimination, especially when they relate to protected characteristics.

Interviewing in Ireland – common pitfalls and best practice tips
The interview process in Ireland is governed by a robust legal framework intended to prevent discrimination and ensure fairness. The cornerstone legislation is the Employment Equality Act 1998 – 2015 (as amended) (the “EEA”), which prohibits discrimination across a range of protected characteristics. 

Seasoned HR practitioners will be familiar with common legal pitfalls under the current legislation, such as:

• Commenting on or asking questions about marital or family status (e.g., “Are you planning to have (anymore) children?”);
• Inquiring about age, religion, or ethnic background;
• Discussing disabilities or health issues unless objectively relevant and necessary.
   

Best practices to avoid discrimination claims include:

Structured interviewing: Use competency-based questions aligned with job requirements. Steer clear of personal topics linked to protected grounds.

Train your interviewers: Provide regular training on equality law and unconscious bias, including current case law developments.

Documenting Interviews: Maintain accurate records of questions asked, responses, scoring (if applicable) and hiring rationales.

Make reasonable adjustments: Be proactive in accommodating candidates with disabilities.

Apply consistent, objective criteria: Assess all candidates using the same, objective job-related metrics to avoid unconscious bias. Avoid subjective judgements or stereotypes.

Will the Pay Transparency Directive reshape interviews?
It is also worth bearing in mind how salary discussions and pay history questions during interviews will be impacted by the forthcoming EU Pay Transparency Directive (due to be transposed into Irish law by June 2026).  Employers will need to bear in mind that:
1.    Salary disclosure: Employers must state the starting pay or pay range in job ads.

2.    No salary history questions: Asking about previous pay will be prohibited.

3.    Transparent pay structures: Employers must explain how pay and progression are determined.

4.    Consistent interviewing: Questions and evaluation criteria must be uniform across candidates.

What can HR teams do to prepare now?
To get ahead of the Directive, HR professionals can:
1.    Review job ads: Start including salary bands and pay progression details.

2.    Update interview protocols: Remove salary history questions and ensure consistency.

3.    Train hiring managers: Roll out tailored sessions on the Directive’s implications.

4.    Audit pay structures: Ensure internal pay systems are objective and defensible.

Final Thoughts
The decision in Williams v Board of Management St. Tola’s NS is a timely reminder that discrimination in recruitment can have serious financial and reputational consequences. Employers must ensure that interview practices are legally compliant, fair, and transparent. Regular training, careful documentation, and a focus on competence over personal characteristics will ensure compliance and support workplace diversity. With the Pay Transparency Directive on the horizon, now is the time to review policies, train staff, and embed equality into every stage of the hiring process.