Ms Deborah Costello (Represented by Ms Mary Brunel) vs Pamella Scott (Represented by Beauchamps Solicitors)
1. BACKGROUND
The complainant was referred through an employment agency (Teamworx Retail Recruitment) for a manager vacancy at Pamella Scott, a Dublin fashion shop. Having attended a first interview she was invited to a second interview however the second interview was cancelled at short notice. The complainant believes that the interview was cancelled when she made it known to the employment agency that she was pregnant. The complainant referred a complaint under the Employment Equality Act, 1998 to the Director of Equality Investigations who delegated the complaint for investigation and decision to Raymund Walsh, Equality Officer. A hearing of the complaint was held on 16th October, 2003. I ordered Ms Denise Brady of Teamworx Retail Recruitment to attend the hearing to give evidence.
2. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINANT'S CASE
The complainant registered with the Teamworx Retail Recruitment Ltd employment agency and was referred to the Pamella Scott fashion shop in Grafton Street, Dublin for a manager vacancy in the ground floor department. The complainant was invited to an interview on 18th November, 2002 with a manager from Pamella Scott. She was informed by the agency that her first interview went well and that she was invited to a second interview at 9:30 a.m. on 22nd November, 2002. The complainant, who was in the early stages of pregnancy, underwent an ultrasound scan and received confirmation on 21st November, 2002 that her pregnancy was proceeding normally. She had not informed anyone outside her immediate family of her pregnancy prior to this date however she now felt it incumbent on her to inform the employment agency. She did so by telephone at 4:34 p.m. on 21st November, 2002 immediately after her hospital appointment. She received a telephone call from the agency a short time later to say that the interview was cancelled. The complainant states that she was told that the company could not employ someone who was pregnant into a managerial position. In a further telephone call on 23rd January, 2003 i.e. after the complainant had referred a complaint to the Director, the agency representative told her that all of the interviews had been cancelled and that the cancellation had nothing to do with her pregnancy. The complainant asked if that was the case why had the agency not telephoned her by 4:30 p.m. the day before the interview but received no response.
3. SUMMARY OF THE RESPONDENT'S CASE
The respondent states that two candidates, one being the complainant, were called for second interviews but that the company had reservations about the suitability of both candidates in terms of their managerial experience. The respondent states that in the light of an on-going review of the management of its Grafton Street branch and its reservations about the two candidates it decided not to proceed with the scheduled second interviews. The respondent states that it informed the agency of its intention to cancel the interviews when the agency phoned about the complainant's pregnancy. However at the hearing the respondent also argued that the interviews could not proceed because the manager who was to conduct the interviews would be away from the office at short notice. At a meeting on 25th November, 2002 the company decided to put the ground floor vacancy on hold indefinitely and to recruit a more senior manager for the entire store. The ground floor vacancy was filled by internal reallocation of duties. The respondent states that at no point did it inform the employment agency that the reason for the cancellation of the second interview was the complainant's pregnancy and states that the employment agency denies that any such reason was given to the complainant. The respondent furnished to the hearing a statement signed by the other candidate confirming that her second interview was cancelled.
4. CONCLUSION
4.1 It is well established that discrimination related to pregnancy constitutes discrimination on the gender ground within the meaning of the Equal Treatment Directive 76/207/EEC and the Employment Equality Act, 1998. The Equality Officer in Mc Kenna and the North Western Health Board (DEC-E-2001-025) refers to the relevant caselaw.
4.2 Having heard the evidence in this case, including the evidence of Ms Denise Brady of Teamworx Retail Recruitment who denies having informed the complainant that her pregnancy was the reason for the cancellation of the interview, I have formed the opinion that the respondent's version of events lacks credibility. It is undisputed fact that the respondent had made no attempt to contact the complainant or the other candidate regarding the cancellation of the interviews prior to the employment agency's call to say that the complainant was pregnant. I found that the respondent's various and overlapping explanations for the cancellation, none of which were communicated to the complainant up to the day before the scheduled interview, lacked credibility. I formed the opinion that the second candidate's interview was cancelled because the respondent did not wish to proceed with the competition in the unfolding circumstances with the one remaining candidate. It could then say quite truthfully that 'all' of the second interviews were cancelled.
4.3 I am satisfied that the complainant has adduced prima facie evidence that the reason for the cancellation of her second interview was her pregnancy and that the burden of proof must shift to the respondent to show that there were reasons other than her pregnancy for the cancellation. I am satisfied that the respondent has failed to discharge that burden. I note that the complainant does not argue that she was necessarily the best qualified candidate to be called for a second interview or that she had reason to believe that she was more likely to be successful than the other candidate had the second interviews gone ahead.
5. DECISION
I find that the respondent discriminated against the complainant contrary to the Equal Treatment Directive and the Employment Equality Act, 1998 when the complainant's second interview was cancelled by Pamella Scott. I order that the respondent pay to the complainant compensation in the amount of €7,000 for the distress that she has suffered because of the discrimination. In deciding on a compensation amount I am bearing in mind that the disputed position was a management position and that the complainant had progressed beyond the first interview.
Raymund Walsh
Equality Officer
3 November, 2003