The complainant originally lodged a complaint against the first named respondent until a P45 was received from the second named respondent against whom she lodged a second complaint.  The first named respondent accepted that it was the employer but subsequently resiled from this.  The second named respondent accepted that it was the employer but it too resiled from this.  The Equality Officer ultimately held the first named respondent was the employer at all times. Throughout this Decision the respondents’ approach was such that the Equality Officer stated that their approach displayed the “lack of diligence and regard …. applied to employment related issues in their respective businesses.”

The complainant claimed equal pay with three different comparators on the race and gender grounds and anybody who has been involved in equal pay claims will know how onerous this can be.  The Equality Officer took the pragmatic approach of initially addressing a comparator who was perceived to be earning the higher amount.  The respondent accepted that she performed like work with this comparator and argued that grounds other than the discriminatory ground existed for the difference in pay.  However, he failed to produce any evidence supporting this position. Once the Equality Officer found that the complainant was entitled to equal pay with this comparator it was not necessary to examine the equal pay claims in respect of those comparators earning the same or less.

The complainant made a number of other allegations in respect of discrimination in respect of harassment and in respect of her conditions of employment all of which were examined but not upheld on either the race or gender grounds. The complainant was awarded equal pay for the period from 22 February 2009 to 24 February 2010.

Why is this case of interest?