Discrimination Claim by New Mother Leads to €50,000 Award
Background
The Complainant began work with the Respondent in August 2022 as an Accounts Administrator. She commenced maternity leave in January 2024 following which she availed of parental leave up to September 2024. She requested a return to part-time work due to the difficulties during her pregnancy and the need to provide care for her baby. The Respondent stated that this could not be facilitated. The Complainant submitted her resignation and subsequently submitted a range of discrimination complaints including constructive discriminatory dismissal. The Respondent submitted that they acted in good faith at all times in denying that the Complainant was discriminated against.
Summary of Complainant’s Case
The Complainant’s representative noted that in relation to the primary facts, the following facts were not in dispute:
- The date the Complainant commenced employment.
- The fact that she was pregnant.
- The date she notified the Respondent of her pregnancy.
- The interpersonal difficulties with her manager.
- She was hospitalised in November 2023 due to high blood pressure.
- She returned to work the following day.
- She attended the Coombe hospital in January 2024.
- She sent a letter from the hospital to the Respondent confirming her confinement.
- The text messages she received from her manager were not disputed.
- Her office possessions were collected and given to her brother.
- She arranged a meeting with her manager to discuss reasonable accommodation, i.e., to work mornings due to issues related to her pregnancy.
- She was denied this request.
- On receipt of the decision to refuse her reasonable accommodation she communicated her resignation to her Employer.
- Her Employer accepted her decision almost immediately (40 minutes later).
- From June 2023 to September 2024, she was never referred by the Respondent to the company doctor for any kind of assessment.
- She was required to climb a flight of stairs daily during her pregnancy complications.
The Complainant stated that the facts presented were sufficient to infer that discrimination on the ground of family status and gender took place.
Summary of Respondent’s Case
The Complainant’s manager gave evidence that she did not consider that her relationship with the Complainant deteriorated after she was told about the pregnancy. She was treated in the same manner as when she started working with the Respondent.
The manager stated that the Respondent had no issue with the Complainant attending any doctors’ appointments. They wanted to do the best they could for the Complainant or any Employee in the same situation. The manager confirmed that it was a colleague of the Complainant’s who collected her office belongings. She had no role in relation to this. She stated that she felt that she had a good relationship with the Complainant, and she was expecting her to return to work after her parental leave.
The meeting with the Complainant in September took place and the Complainant arrived with her baby. The manager congratulated her, and the Complainant spoke about her pregnancy. The Complainant asked if she could return on a part-time basis, and she told her that this could only be considered on medical grounds and then she could push for approval from the CEO. The manager explained that part-time work was never done in the office. This was because they had a large customer base, and part-time work would not work in the finance or sales office.
The manager stated that the Respondent only became aware of the issues the Complainant had when her brother told them about it and then the saw the details on the WRC complaint form.
Findings and Conclusions
The primary facts in this case were:
- The Complainant was an Employee of the Respondent.
- Her gender is female.
- She became pregnant.
- She informed her Employer in June 2023.
- She was not paid for ante natal appointments.
- Her bonus was affected by virtue of her attendance at ante natal appointments.
- She experienced difficulties with her manager after informing her of the pregnancy.
- There was no risk assessment carried out in relation to what, if any, accommodations might be required.
- The Complainant was hospitalised for a day during her pregnancy and was later hospitalised until the birth of her baby.
- The Complainant’s belongings were collected and returned to a family member without any consent or discussion with the Complainant.
- She was refused part-time work on the basis that it never took place.
- Part-time work was allowed for family members of the Respondent.
- The Respondent did not meaningful engage with the Complainant in relation to return to work options and a potential timescale.
- Despite acknowledging that payments to the Complainant “may have been overlooked” there was no offer by the Respondent to rectify this flagrant mismanagement of her statutory entitlements.
Arising from the evidence in this case and the facts outlined above, the Adjudicator was satisfied that the Complainant had presented facts from which it may be presumed that the principle of equal treatment has not been applied to her. Therefore, the responsibility for proving that discrimination did not occur shifted to the Respondent.
The complaint under the gender and family status grounds in the present case arose on foot of the Complainant’s pregnancy resulting in her exercising her right to attend paid maternity appointments and her attempt to return to her job post-protective leave on a part-time basis.
The complaints under the Employment Equality Act on grounds of gender, pregnancy, family status, disability, and victimisation were all strongly denied by the Respondent who argued that no such complaints were raised by the Complainant during her employment. The Respondent maintained that they always acted lawfully and in good faith and the Complainant resigned from her position.
The Adjudicator found that it was clear from the evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses that there was a lack of knowledge in relation to the statutory protection afforded to pregnant Employees. There was no credible explanation to explain why a risk assessment, paid time off for maternity-related appointments and meaningful and tangible efforts to reasonably accommodate the Complainant were not undertaken.
There were also inconsistencies in some of the Respondent’s evidence. There was no explanation given as to why another Employee was paid for her appointments and the Complainant was not. This evidence did not align with the Respondent’s testimony that they treated all pregnant Employees equally.
In relation to the initial time off request, the Respondent relied on the fact that this was actually granted. However, the fact remains that it was initially refused and only granted when the Complainant felt compelled to disclose the nature of the appointment. It was also remarkable that the Complainant’s manager felt that she had no role in relation to health and safety leave for the Complainant and that this was the responsibility of another manager. Again, this does not align with the Respondent’s position that they acted in good faith at all times in relation to the Complainant. It was also a fact that the Respondent denied that there was any part-time work given to any Employee. Relatives of the Respondent’s CEO were afforded this opportunity, and it was not even considered for the Complainant.
The Respondent also confirmed that the role held by the Complainant remained vacant. The Respondent was unable to justify why a part-time Employee would not be of assistance in that situation.
Based on the evidence, the Adjudicator found that the Complainant was discriminated against on the gender and family status grounds. The Complainant adduced facts of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of unlawful discrimination, such that the burden shifted to the Respondent to ‘prove the contrary’ which it failed to do.
The Adjudicator considered the Complainant’s present loss, future loss and her loss of statutory protection, and the effects of the dismissal on the Complainant and to ensure that there would be a dissuasive effect for the Employer, the Adjudicator awarded her the sum of €50,000.
Decision
The Adjudicator ruled that the Complainant was discriminated against by the Respondent and awarded her the sum of €50,000.
Recommendations
Employers are exposed to severe consequences if they misunderstand or misinterpret their statutory duties to Employees both during pregnancy and on their return to work after maternity leave. The evidence in this case revealed that there was a lack of knowledge at management level in the Respondent Organisation around the statutory protections afforded to pregnant Employees.
Organisations should note that Employees need only establish facts that raise an inference of unequal treatment to substantiate a discrimination claim under the Employment Equity Act. Once an Employee identifies a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden of proof shifts to the Employer who must prove that no unequal treatment took place.
In this case, the Employer’s mismanagement of the Employee statutory entitlements both during her pregnancy and on her return to work was of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of unlawful discrimination. As the Respondent failed to ‘prove the contrary,’ the Adjudicator found that the Complainant was discriminated against on the grounds of gender and family status.
The high level of compensation also serves as a vivid reminder of the importance of having an appropriate Maternity Leave Policy in place to ensure that both management and Employees are clear on their rights and entitlements.