EQUALITY OFFICER'S DECISION NO: DEC-E/2013/106
PARTIES
Ms. Sarah Kelly
(Represented by John J. Quinn & Co. Solicitors)
V
University of Dublin Trinity College
(Represented by IBEC)
FILE NO: EE/2011/304
DATE OF ISSUE: 10 September, 2013
1. Dispute
This dispute involves claims by Ms. Sarah Kelly that she was discriminated against by University of Dublin Trinity College, on the grounds of gender and family status, in terms of section 6 and contrary to section 8 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 and 2008, in relation to her conditions of employment when her contract was not extended following her maternity leave. She has also submitted a claim of harassment on grounds of gender and family status. The initial complaint also referred a claim of failure to provide the complainant with a contract of indefinite duration following successive fixed term contracts, but this aspect of the claim was not pursued by the complainant.
2. Background
2.1 The complainant referred a complaint against the above respondent under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2008 to the Equality Tribunal on 28th of February, 2011.
2.2 In accordance with his powers under section 75 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2008 the Director delegated the case on the 19th of February, 2013 to me, Orla Jones, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part VII of those Acts This is the date I commenced my investigation. Written submissions were received from all parties. As required by section 79(1) of the Acts and, as part of my investigation, I proceeded to a hearing on 24th of May 2013. Final submissions and information in relation to this matter were submitted on the 25th of June, 2013.
3. Summary of complainant's case
3.1 It is submitted that the complainant was employed by the respondent, from 7th of September, 2009 to 6th of September 2010 in the Department of Natural Sciences. It is submitted that she had a good working relationship with her manager Ms. F.
3.3 It is submitted that the complainant informed her manager Ms. F of her pregnancy in October 2009 and that her manager did not react well to the news of her pregnancy. It is submitted that following the announcement of her pregnancy there was a dramatic change in her relationship with Ms F and that the next few days were 'terrible' with very little being said between the complainant and Ms. F resulting in 'cold working environment'.
3.4 It is submitted that things improved after the initial few days but that there were good days and bad days.
3.5 The week following the announcement of her pregnancy it is submitted that the complainant fell ill and furnished a sick cert for 7 working days. It is submitted that on her return to work the environment was 'horrible'. It is submitted that this happened on more than one occasion after returning from pregnancy related sickness. The complainant began to fear calling in sick and dreaded returning to work after sick leave.
3.6 It is submitted that the complainant became anxious when asking for time off for appointments and ante-natal classes as her manager made her feel that she was 'putting her out' .
3.7 It is submitted that during the complainant's maternity leave her calls and emails to her manager, Ms. F would go unanswered for several days. On one occasion the complainant phoned the college to speak to Ms. F and was told that Ms. F was on holidays but she later discovered that this was not the case.
3.8 The complainant went on maternity leave on 20th March 2010 to 20th September 2010 and her employers hired Ms. M to cover for her maternity leave.
3.9 The complainant's contract was due for renewal on 6th of September, 2010. She contacted her manager Ms. F on 3rd of August 2010 who confirmed that the complainant's contract was not being renewed. The reasons given were that funds were not available and the position was not being kept on.
3.10 It is submitted that the complainant's position was renewed to her maternity cover, Ms. M who was carrying out the same role as the complainant. It is submitted that the title of the job was changed from Executive Officer to Research Assistant but that the role remained the same.
3.11 It is submitted that the complainant's contract was not renewed as her pregnancy was an inconvenience to her employer.
4. Summary of respondent's case
4.1 The complainant initially commenced employment with the respondent in 2006 and was employed for three summers in the Housekeeping Department on a part time temporary basis during the summer months of 2006-2008. She later sought to be placed on the College Temporary Executive Officer database. From this database the complainant interviewed and was successful for a role in the School of Mathematics covering maternity leave from January to June 2009. Following this she commenced a 3 month contract in the Student Records Department from June to September 2009.
4.2 In August 2009 the complainant applied for and was successful in securing a 1 year post of Executive Officer in the School of Natural Sciences. This commenced on 7th of September 2009 and was to expire on 6th of September, 2010. The post was clearly advertised at all times as a one year position (advertisement submitted).
4.3 In January 2010 the complainant informed the college via the Staff Office that she was pregnant. On 1 February 2010 the Staff Office wrote to the complainant confirming her maternity leave dates and the pay arrangements for same.
4.4 The complainant commenced her maternity leave on 22 March, 2010. She received maternity top-up pay from the college in accordance with College policy. The complainant received 24 weeks paid maternity leave prior to the natural expiry of her contract.
4.5 The complainant was in contact with her manager Ms. F during the course of her maternity leave. In August 2010 Ms. F confirmed to the complainant that, as expected, continued funding was not available for the complainant's Executive Officer post and her contract would end without renewal on its natural expiry date. Ms. F advised the complainant that she should contact the recruitment officer, Ms. D to be placed back on the College Temporary Executive Officer database.
4.6 The role of temporary Executive Officer in the School of Natural Sciences ceased on 6th of September 2010 and the complainant was not replaced. Ms. M who had filled in for the complainant's maternity leave ceased employment as temporary Executive Officer at this time.
4.7 On 8th of June 2011 the complainant commenced work as Assistant Housekeeping Services Manager on a fixed term summer contract until 16th of September, 2011.
5. Findings and Conclusions of the Equality Officer
5.1 Preliminary Jurisdictional Issue- Ground-Gender
5.1.1 The respondent submits that the complainant in her complaint form to the Tribunal indicated that she was making a claim on the ground of family status and that she has not identified any comparator in relation to whom she was less favourably treated on this ground. The complainant's submission indicates that the majority of the allegations raised relate to the complainants treatment during her pregnancy and maternity leave and thus the claim should have been made on the gender ground. The complainant's representative at the hearing acknowledged that gender should have been ticked as a ground on the complainant form and submitted therefore that the complaint was being advanced on grounds of gender, notwithstanding the fact that the Referral Form (Form EE1) did not indicate this. He also argued that the statement as submitted to the Tribunal and forwarded to the respondent on 2nd of March, 2011 clearly relates to allegations of gender discrimination specifically following the announcement of the complainants pregnancy and her maternity leave.
5.1.2 It is clear from case law1 that the EE1 Form is not statute based and it is permissible to amend a complaint provided the general nature of the complaint remains the same and there is no prejudice to the respondent. In the instant case it is apparent that complainant in her referral form, attributed the family status ground to matters relating to pregnancy and in doing so failed to include the gender ground. The detail contained in the form clearly indicates that the complainant's period of pregnancy and maternity leave is fundamental to her complaint. In addition, the complainant's submission which was copied to the respondent on 5th of September 2011, clearly indicates that the allegations made by the complainant relate to her pregnancy and maternity leave and make no reference to family status. Again it is clear from this submission that the complainant's period of pregnancy and maternity leave is fundamental to her complaint. After considering the arguments advanced by both parties on this matter I decided that (a) the nature of the complaint had not changed - matters connected with her the complainant's pregnancy were part of the complaint from the outset notwithstanding the error on the part of the complainant and/or her solicitor in filling out the form and (b) no prejudice to the respondent arose. Consequently, the complainant is entitled to advance her complaint on the gender ground.
5.2 Allegations on grounds of Family Status
5.2.1 The complainant's representative on the day of the hearing advanced a claim on the family status ground, in relation to the complainant not being given an opportunity to apply for the new role of Research Assistant which Ms. M her maternity cover later occupied following the expiry of the Executive Officer post.
5.2.2 The respondent at the hearing objected to this new component on the basis that it had never been raised prior to the hearing and argued that the respondent had not been on notice of any such allegations. The respondent argued that following the fact that the ground of gender was now being relied upon even though it was not in the original referral form, the respondent was now also being asked to respond to allegations relating to a completely new issue which had never before been raised until the day of the hearing. The respondent added that they could not be expected to respond to an ever shifting claim and to allegations about which they had received no prior notice.
5.2.3 I am satisfied that the allegation in relation to the complainant not being given an opportunity to apply for the post of Research Assistant had not been raised prior to the hearing. This new component refers to a matter which allegedly took place at the same time as other allegations referred to in the claim form and in the submission i.e. at the expiry of the complainants contract in September, 2010. This new allegation thus relates to a matter which could easily have been included or referred to in the complaint form or at the very least in the submission if it had been intended to form part of the claim. I am satisfied that this component was not referred to in the complaint form and was not mentioned in the submission. In addition the ground on which this claim is based is the 'family status' ground.
5.2.4 The complainant in seeking to advance this allegation is seeking to rely on the fact that the 'family status' ground was ticked on the complaint form although no further details of any allegations on the family status ground were included on the complaint form or in the complainant's submission. As is clear from my finding at pgh 5.1 above, the original complaint form and supporting submission made by the complainant refers to allegations of discrimination and harassment during the period of her pregnancy and maternity leave. I have concluded above that the complaint should correctly have been made on the ground of gender and I have allowed the claim to proceed on the ground of gender on the basis that gender should have been ticked on the referral form instead of family status. It seems clear from the submissions made and from the arguments put forward that the complainant and/or her representative incorrectly attributed matters relating to pregnancy and maternity leave to the 'family status' ground instead of to the gender ground. Thus in allowing the claim to proceed on the gender ground I am acknowledging that gender was the ground on which the complaint should have been taken.
5.2.5 On this basis, the introduction of new allegations of failure to allow the complainant access to the role of Research Assistant, on the ground of 'family status' would appear to be an attempt to introduce a new ground or to rely on a ground which was not present in the original complaint form, except in error. In considering this matter I must look at my conclusions regarding the gender ground. To now permit the introduction of a claim on family status grounds would in effect be to allow the introduction of new allegations on a new ground.
5.2.6 As I have mentioned above it is clear from case law2 that it is permissible to amend a complaint provided the general nature of the complaint remains the same and there is no prejudice to the respondent. However the introduction of a new component to the present claim, on a new ground is not permissible. In addition, it is clear, in the instant case, that the respondent was not on notice of these new allegations regarding access to the post of Research Assistant. I am thus satisfied that this aspect of the claim cannot succeed.
5.3 Preliminary Jurisdictional Issue -Time Limits
5.3.1 The respondent submits that the allegations made by the complainant are for the most part outside of the time limits set down by the legislation. The respondent has argued that as the complaint was submitted on 28th of February 2011 the applicable time period for this claim must relate to allegations of discrimination occurring on or after 29th of August 2010. The respondent submits that as the complainant commenced her maternity leave on 22nd of March, 2010 over six months before 29th of August, 2010 any alleged instances of discrimination or harassment occurring prior to her maternity leave are outside of the time limits. In addition the respondent submits that the allegations relating to pregnancy related sick leave and ante natal appointments are outside of the time limits. It is further submitted that allegations regarding instances occurring during the complainant's maternity leave can only relate to acts occurring between 29th of August 2010 and 6th of September 2010.
5.3.2 This is only relevant in the circumstance where the claim itself is made outside of the 6 months time limit set out in Section 77(5) of the Acts. This is not relevant in the instant case as the claim was submitted on 28th of February, 2011 and the last alleged incident took place on 6th of September, 2010, thus I am satisfied that the relevant complaint was submitted within the 6 months time limit set out in Section 77(5) of the Acts. In addition, the decision in County Louth VEC v The Equality Tribunal and Pearse Brannigan, Unreported, High Court, McGovern J. 24th July 2009, provides a clear authority to allow me to investigate additional acts which occurred prior to the initiation of the claim once the nature of the claim is the same.
In Brannigan McGovern, J said:
I accept the submission on behalf of the respondent that the form EE1 was only intended to set out, in broad outline, the nature of the complaint. If it is permissible in court proceedings to amend pleadings where the justice of the case requires it, then a fortiori, it should be permissible to amend a claim as set out in a form such as the EE1, so long as the general nature of the complaint (in this case, discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation) remains the same. What is in issue here is the furnishing of further and better particulars, although, it must be said, in the context of an expanded period of time. But under the legislation it is clear that the complaints, which are made within that expanded period, are not time-barred. That is not to say that complaints going back over a lengthy period would have to be considered as an issue of prejudice might arise. But this is something that would fall to be dealt with in the course of the hearing in any particular case.
Of course, it is necessary that insofar as the nature of the claim is expanded, the respondent in the claim must be given a reasonable opportunity to deal with these complaints and the procedures adopted by the Equality Officer must be fair and reasonable and in compliance with the principles of natural and constitutional justice
5.3.3 I am satisfied, that in the instant case, all of the incidents relate to allegations of discrimination and harassment on the ground of gender. I am also satisfied that the respondent was on notice of all matters referred therein having received a copy of the complaint on 2nd of March 2011. I am thus satisfied that I have jurisdiction to investigate all matters referred therein.
5.4 Discrimination
5.4.1 The issue for decision by me now is, whether or not, the respondent discriminated against the complainant, on grounds of gender in terms of Section 6 and contrary to Section 8 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2008, in relation to her treatment during and after her pregnancy and in relation to the failure to renew her contract. I must also decide whether the complainant was harassed on this ground. In reaching my Decision I have taken into account all of the submissions, oral and written, made to me in the course of my investigation as well as the evidence at the Hearing.
5.4.2 Section 85A of the Employment Equality Acts sets out the burden of proof which applies in a claim of discrimination. It requires the complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination. If she succeeds in doing so, then, and only then, is it for the respondent to prove the contrary. The Labour Court elaborated on the interpretation of section 85A in Melbury v. Valpeters EDA/0917 where it stated that section 85A: "places the burden of establishing the primary facts fairly and squarely on the Complainant and the language of this provision admits of no exceptions to that evidential rule".
5.4.3 Section 6(1) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2008 provides that discrimination shall be taken to occur where "a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2)....." Sections 6(2)(a)(b) and (c) of the Acts define the discriminatory grounds of gender, marital status and family status as follows - "as between any 2 persons, ...
(a) that one is a woman and the other is a man,..
(b) that they are of different marital status...
(c) that one has a family and the other does not "...
5.5 Gender-Pregnancy and the special protected period
5.5.1 The entire period of pregnancy and maternity leave constitutes a special, protected period as outlined in the Court of Justice of the European Union Decisions in Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd3 Brown v Rentokil Ltd4 and Dekker v Stichting Vormingscentrum5 . The Labour Court in Trailer Care Holdings Ltd Vs Deborah Healy 6referred to the fact that "the jurisprudential principle that discrimination on grounds of pregnancy constitutes direct discrimination on grounds of sex is now codified in Directive 2006/54/EC on the Principle of Equal Treatment of Men and Women (the Recast Directive). This Directive provides, at Article 2. 2 (c), that any less favourable treatment of a woman related to pregnancy or maternity leave within the meaning of Directive 92/85/EEC constitutes unlawful discrimination for the purpose of that Directive". Futhermore it refers specifically to Dekker v Stichting Vormingscentrum and the fact that "the Court of Justice of the European Union (formally the ECJ) has made it clear that since pregnancy is a uniquely female condition any adverse treatment of a woman on grounds of pregnancy is direct discrimination on ground of her sex. Thus, the law of the European Union recognises the reality that to treat a woman less favourably because she is pregnant is to discriminate against her because she is a woman. That can never be justified. Issues such as disruption caused to an employer's business or costs associated with accommodating a pregnant woman in employment are, as a matter of Union law, wholly irrelevant"7
5.6 Treatment during pregnancy
5.6.1 The complainant has submitted that following the announcement of her pregnancy her relationship with her manager Ms. F deteriorated to the point where there was a 'cold working environment'.
Harassment
5.6.2 The complainant advised the hearing that she had told her manager Ms. F about her pregnancy in October, 2009. The complainant stated that Ms. F appeared shocked to hear that she was pregnant and added that Ms. F had then asked her about her monthly cycle and what contraception she had been using. Ms. F at the hearing acknowledged that she was a bit surprised when the complainant told her about her pregnancy as the complainant herself told her at the time that she was shocked to find herself pregnant. Ms. F at the hearing denied asking the complainant about her monthly cycle or about contraception as she stated that these are very personal and private matters which she herself wouldn't even discuss with her husband let alone with a work colleague. The complainant at the hearing stated that she herself had in fact been shocked to find herself pregnant. I am satisfied from Ms. F's answers to my questions and from her demeanour in relation to questions of a personal nature that she did not question the complainant regarding her method of contraception.
5.6.3 The complainant advised the hearing that the atmosphere between herself and Ms. F became hostile if the complainant was off or out on sick leave due to her pregnancy. The complainant submitted that she began to dread asking for time off for appointments or taking sick leave during her pregnancy, as her manager made her feel as though she was 'putting her out'. Ms. F advised the hearing that there was no change in the relationship between herself and the complainant. Ms. F stated that she had been extremely supportive of the complainant during her pregnancy and had often texted her outside of work hours to see if she was ok. Ms. F stated that she had expressed concerns about the complainant travelling to and from work during bad weather conditions and had even given the complainant time off during the snow as she was concerned about her commuting to and from work in such weather conditions while pregnant. The complainant agreed that she had been given such time off during the bad weather. The complainant at the hearing acknowledged that she had attended all of her ante natal appointments and had never been prevented from doing so. Accordingly I am satisfied from the totality of the evidence adduced in relation to this matter that the complainant was not discriminated against or harassed on grounds of gender in relation to these matters.
5.6.4 The complainant advised the hearing that on one occasion while she was out on pregnancy related sick leave Ms. F had contacted her at home about a work related matter. The complainant stated that at this time she was off work for a period of two weeks. Ms. F at the hearing agreed that she had contacted the complainant while she was out sick and stated that this was normal behaviour in the college. Ms. F added that the complainant was the only staff member in her area of work and that she had a lot of responsibility in her role and added that in the complainant's absence Ms. F would sometimes have to contact her at home to ask her about work matters. Ms. F stated that this happened on an occasion when the complainant had been out for a number of days following which an important meeting was due to take place. Ms. F stated that she had on the day before the meeting phoned the complainant to ask her about something which was required for the meeting. I am satisfied that Ms. F in contacting the complainant at home was not deviating from usual college practice and was motivated by work concerns and that such contact was not motivated by the complainant's pregnancy. Accordingly I am satisfied from the totality of the evidence adduced in relation to this matter that the complainant was not discriminated against or harassed on grounds of gender in relation to these matters.
5.6.5 The complainant advised the hearing that she had on one occasion phoned Ms. F at work when she was worried she might be miscarrying. The complainant stated that Ms. F had told her that she had had such problems in her own pregnancy and had advised the complainant she would be fine to attend work. The complainant added that she had taken two days off work at the time on her doctor's advice but stated that Ms. F had told her she herself had worked through such problems.
5.6.6 Ms. F gave evidence that she had been through a similar situation while pregnant with her own daughter and stated that she had had to take a month off work at the time. Ms. F stated that she understood the seriousness of such matters due to her own experience, and stated that she would certainly not have advised the complainant to come to work in such circumstances. I find Ms. F's account of this matter to be credible and honest and am satisfied that she would not have given the complainant bad advice in relation to such a serious matter, given her own experience. Accordingly I am satisfied that the complainant was not discriminated against or harassed on grounds of gender in relation to this matter.
5.6.7 Ms. F advised the hearing that she had always enjoyed a good working relationship with the complainant and that they had maintained regular contact during the complainant's maternity leave. Ms F stated that the complainant had even invited her to her sons christening but added that she had been unable to attend due to family commitments. The complainant at the hearing acknowledged that she had invited Ms. F to the christening.
5.6.8 The complainant at the hearing stated that she had during her maternity leave emailed Ms. F on occasions and had received no reply. She stated that on one occasion she had been told that Ms. F was on holiday but she later discovered this was not true. Ms. F advised the hearing that she had been away during the period in question and stated that otherwise any emails from the complainant were replied to promptly. In evidence of this the respondent produced emails from the complainant and replies to same which issued from Ms. F within 2 days. Accordingly, based on the totality of the evidence adduced in relation to these matters I am satisfied that the complainant was not discriminated against or harassed on the ground of gender in relation to these matters.
5.7 Maternity Leave cover
5.7.1 The complainant submits that her contract was not renewed as her pregnancy was an inconvenience to her employer. The complainant advised the hearing that her contract was due to expire on 6th of September , 2010 but that she had expected it to be renewed and added that it would have been renewed but for her pregnancy. The complainant advised the hearing that Ms. M who had been hired to cover her maternity leave had been kept on in her place after the contract expiry date.
5.7.2 The respondent advised the hearing that the complainant's contract was always due to expire on 6th of September 2010 and that the post had been advertised as a one year post. The complainant acknowledged that this was the case but states that Ms. M was kept on after this date. Ms. F witness for the respondent advised the hearing that the complainant was well aware that her contract was due to expire after a year but that Ms. F had undertaken to try end get it renewed in the hope that the post would be kept on for another year. Ms. F stated that it was in her interests to maintain the post as she was in a very busy area and needed the staff. Ms. F stated that she had sought to have the contract extended for another year but that funding was not available. Ms. F advised the hearing that she had kept the complainant appraised of these attempts to have her contracted extended via emails (submitted in evidence). The complainant acknowledged that Ms. F had advised her of this but states that Ms. M was kept on despite this fact. Ms. F stated that Ms. M was not 'kept on' but rather that Ms. M was taken on in a different role as a Research Assistant to Professor P. Ms. F stated that Ms. M no longer worked for her and that she was employed in a different capacity in a different role and that she had in this new role worked directly to Professor P.
5.7.3 Professor P attended as a witness on behalf of the respondent and gave detailed evidence of what his research entailed. He advised the hearing that he had recruited Ms. M as a research assistant to help him with compiling his book on 'Flora and fauna of Ireland' in particular with the illustrative content of the book. Professor P advised the hearing that he had become aware from several conversations with Ms. M that she had a keen interest in photography and that she had qualifications in art and photography. Professor P went on to state that when it came to the post of research assistant, it was a post which would potentially have been offered to one of his students but stated that Ms. M appeared to have the relevant qualifications and aptitude to assist him with the illustrations in his book on 'flora and fauna of Ireland'. Professor P went on to state that he became aware that Ms. M's Executive Officer position was coming to an end and so he had offered her the post of research assistant to him due to her qualifications and interest in art and photography. Professor P. went on to describe in detail, the tasks involved in Ms. M 's role as his Research Assistant. I am thus satisfied from the evidence adduced by Professor P in relation to this matter that Ms. M was employed by him as a research assistant to perform a particular role and one for which he deemed Ms. M to be particularly suitable. In addition witness for the respondent Ms. F gave evidence that Ms. M ceased to perform the role of Executive Officer at the date of termination of the contract and was not kept on in this role after that date. I am thus satisfied that Ms. M was not kept on in the complainant's role after the date of termination of the Executive Officer contract. Accordingly based on the totality of the evidence adduced in relation to this matter I am satisfied that the complainant was not discriminated against or harassed on the ground of gender in relation to this matter.
5.7.4 The complainant, at the hearing, stated that Ms. M had continued in the role of Executive Officer after the date of termination of the contract and disputed the fact that Ms. M had been employed as a Research Assistant to Professor P. The complainant then argued that she had should have been given an opportunity to apply for the role of Research Assistant and stated that she had not been offered this or any subsequent posts due to her pregnancy and due to her family status. I have dealt with the issue of the family status ground at pgh 5.2 above.
5.7.5 In relation to the gender ground and the alleged failure to offer the complainant additional posts, Ms. F advised the hearing that the complainant had been employed by the respondent in another position as Assistant Housekeeping Services Manager some months following her maternity leave. Ms. F also stated that she had in October 2011 been allocated funding for an Executive Officer post on a part time basis and stated that she had invited the complainant to apply for this post and had sent her the job spec for the post but that the complainant had not responded. The complainant at the hearing acknowledged that this was the case and that she had received the job specification but stated that she didn't apply as she felt she couldn't return to that area due to her complaint. The complainant advised the hearing that she had interviewed for but been unsuccessful in her application for a post in the School of Mathematics. The complainant at the hearing acknowledged that she had been notified of and interviewed for additional posts in the college since. It also emerged at the hearing that the complainant had been successful in her application for a post in the Housekeeping Department and had since occupied a 3 month contract in this area. As the complainant was offered a number of additional posts by the respondent following her pregnancy and the birth of her child I am satisfied that the alleged failure to offer her subsequent posts was not in any way related to her pregnancy or the birth of her child. Accordingly I am satisfied based on the totality of the evidence adduced in relation to this matter that the respondent did not discriminate against or harass the complainant on the ground of gender in relation to this matter.
6. DECISION OF THE EQUALITY OFFICER
6.1 I have completed my investigation of this complaint and in accordance with section 79(6) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2008 I issue the following decision. I find -
(i) that the respondent did not discriminate against the complainant on grounds of gender in terms of section 6(2) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 -2008 and contrary to section 8 of those Acts in respect of the following matters
-her alleged treatment following the announcement of her pregnancy
- the failure to renew her contract following her pregnancy and maternity leave
-the alleged failure to offer her any subsequent posts within the college
(ii) that the respondent did not harass the complainant on grounds of gender in terms of section 6(2) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 -2008 and contrary to Section 14A (7) of those Acts in respect of the following matters
-her alleged treatment following the announcement of her pregnancy
- the failure to renew her contract following her pregnancy and maternity leave
-the alleged failure to offer her any subsequent posts within the college
____________________
Orla Jones
Equality Officer
10 September, 2013
FOOTNOTES:
1 See Louth VEC v The Equality Tribunal [2009] IEHC 370
2 See Louth VEC v The Equality Tribunal [2009] IEHC 370
3 [1994] ECR 1-3567
4 [1998] ECR 1-04185
5 [1990] ECR 1-3941
6 EDA No 128
7 [1990] ECR 1-3941