In this Case, the Complainant submitted that specific eligibility criteria for promotion to a new role placed her at a distinct disadvantage within the Respondent Organisation and constituted indirect discrimination.
The provision in question expressly prohibited any persons working below a certain threshold of weekly hours from being considered for a senior role, regardless of their aggregate level of experience in that role or without consideration of any other relevant factors. The Complainant’s part-time experience since 2008 was therefore disregarded.
The Adjudicator cited authorities demonstrating that part-time work, and particularly part-time work engaged with for the purposes of attending to familial commitments, is predominantly availed of by women and, consequently, any apparently neutral provision that disadvantages persons engaged in such working patterns constituted indirect discrimination on the grounds of gender and family status.
The Respondent’s primary line of defence rested on stating that the eligibility criteria were developed by an expert working group. The Respondent however could not provide any direct evidence into the substance of the reasoning for the weekly hours’ requirement.
While the Respondent had a right to set certain standards and eligibility criteria for roles within its Organisation, this right did not permit the Respondent to indirectly discriminate against applicants without establishing objective justification for doing so. The Adjudicator found that the requirement in question was not necessary to achieve a real need within the Respondent Organisation and the Respondent could not therefore rely on the defence of objective justification.
In these circumstances, the Adjudicator found that the Complainant was discriminated against and awarded €20,000 in compensation.
To learn more about partnering with Adare Trusted People Partners’ Leading HR & Employment Law Experts, please contact Neil McCormack at nmccormack@adarehrm.ie today.