€50,000 Compensation Award Highlights Risks of Pregnancy-related Discrimination
Background
The Complainant lodged a claim under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act alleging that she had been discriminatorily dismissed by the Respondent after disclosing that she was pregnant.
Summary of Complainant’s Case
The Complainant submitted that she commenced a role as a supervising pharmacist in November 2024. She submitted that she was managing her team successfully through the busy Christmas period and received a lot of positive feedback from the owner of the business. However, she submitted that following the disclosure of her pregnancy in February 2025, her treatment in the workplace changed markedly. Within 5 weeks she experienced a sharp decline in how she was treated culminating in her dismissal in March 2025. The Complainant submitted that she believed that this sequence of events constituted discriminatory treatment on the grounds of pregnancy and potentially amounted to unfair dismissal under the relevant legislation.
The Complainant submitted that following her pregnancy disclosure, she was subjected to increased micromanagement and scrutiny. An external consultant was brought in, and she later learned that he had been instructed to assess her performance, rather than to support the team.
The Complainant submitted that she was not given a fair opportunity to respond to alleged performance concerns or to demonstrate her capabilities. She was asked to accept a demotion with a pay cut which she believed was unjustified and directly linked to her pregnancy. When she refused to accept that demotion, she was summarily dismissed with only four weeks’ notice and no due process.
The Complainant submitted that the meeting regarding her proposed demotion was conducted in a public setting in a nearby hotel lobby. She submitted that prior to disclosing her pregnancy, no concerns were raised about her performance and her experience in the role had been entirely positive. She stated that she received no prior warnings either verbal, written or informal.
The Complainant submitted that there was a rapid change in how she was treated, without any prior documented concerns, strongly suggesting that her pregnancy was the catalyst for the demotion and dismissal. The speed and nature of her dismissal and the hostile environment created after her disclosure left her emotionally distressed and mentally exhausted. She stated that she believed she was treated less favourably because she was pregnant and that her dismissal was discriminatory, unfair and procedurally flawed.
The Complainant submitted that the right to appeal was referenced in the Employee Handbook and in the dismissal letter she received in March 2025, however there were legitimate reasons for not pursuing an internal appeal. The handbook stated that appeals should be made to the floor manager or supervising pharmacist, the floor Manager was on maternity leave and the Complainant herself was the supervising pharmacist. Therefore, there was no appropriate or neutral figure to hear her appeal. The only individual available to receive the appeal was the same person who confirmed the dismissal and who attempted to demote her after she indicated that she was pregnant. The dismissal letter instructed the Complainant to appeal to an unnamed person simply referred to as ‘X’ within 5 days without identifying who that person was or how the process would work. The Complainant submitted that the lack of clarity made it impossible for her to engage in the appeal process. She also submitted that there was no follow-on or support after the five-day deadline.
The Complainant also noted that the Respondent failed to follow any formal disciplinary process to address any performance concerns, all of which are standard components of a fair procedure. The Complainant submitted that the exact reason for dismissal was not stated in the dismissal letter.
Summary of Respondent’s Case
The Respondent did not attend the hearing and offered no defence to the claim.
Findings and Conclusions
The Complainant took a case under the Employment Equality Act that she was discriminated against and ultimately dismissed on gender grounds when she revealed to her Employer that she was pregnant. She submitted that she enjoyed a good working environment over what was a busy Christmas period and afterwards received compliments from both her Employer and customers.
After disclosing her pregnancy to the Respondent, the working environment became difficult when she was micromanaged, and complaints were made against her. She was not informed of the complaints or allowed to provide reasonable responses to the allegations made against her. She was threatened with dismissal if she did not accept a demotion which would have resulted in a significant loss of income. She did not accept the demotion and was subsequently dismissed. She submitted that the treatment and dismissal was discriminatory in nature.
In reference to the burden of proof, the Adjudicator noted that it was sufficient for the Complainant to establish that she was pregnant and that a dismissal occurred to shift the burden of proof onto the Respondent to rebut. The Complainant came across as a credible witness. The Respondent did not attend the hearing and did not provide any submission to the WRC. Therefore, no exceptional circumstances were provided which were unrelated to the Complainant’s pregnancy to explain her dismissal. Accordingly, the Adjudicator found that that the Complainant established that she was discriminatorily dismissed in circumstances where she was pregnant.
The Complainant’s salary amounted to circa €100,000 per annum. Taking all the factors into account, the Adjudicator was satisfied that an award of €50,000 was appropriate in all the circumstances.
Decision
The complaint was well founded, and the Adjudicator awarded the Complainant €50,000 in compensation.
Recommendations
The decision serves as a reminder that claims relating to unfavourable treatment connected to pregnancy are relatively easy for Employees to establish. Once an Employee establishes facts that indicate she suffered unfair treatment on account of her pregnancy, the burden of proof then shifts to the Employer to prove that any unfavourable treatment that occurred was not due to pregnancy. In this case, the Complainant established sufficient evidence to shift the burden of proof to her Employer and as the Respondent did not provide any objective reasons unrelated to her pregnancy to explain the dismissal, the Adjudicator found that the dismissal was discriminatory.
The high level of compensation highlights the importance of taking particular care when dealing with workplace issues concerning pregnancy or gender which are protected under employment equality legislation. Ensuring that all employment decisions are supported by legitimate, objective and properly documented reasons and that fair procedures are followed is essential to minimise the risk of a discrimination claim.