THE EQUALITY TRIBUNAL
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS 1998-2011
DEC-E2014-093
Geraldine Butler-Duffy
versus
Copley Retail Ltd formerly trading as Paco (in liquidation)
File Number: EE/2012/599
Date issued: 30th December 2014
Keywords: Employment Equality Acts, Age, Access to employment
Dispute
1.1 The case concerns a complaint by Ms Geraldine Butler-Duffy that Copley Retail Ltd discriminated against her on the grounds of age regarding access to employment contrary to Section 8(1)(a) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2011 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Acts’].
1.2 The complainant referred a complaint under the Act to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 23rd November 2012. On 2nd September 2014 in accordance with his powers under Section 75 of the Act, the Director delegated this case to me, Orlaith Mannion, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part VII of the Acts. On this date, my investigation commenced. Submissions were received from both parties and as required by Section 79(1) of the Act a hearing commenced on 24th September 2014.
Summary of the complainant’s case
2.1 The complainant submits that she applied for the position of Manager/Supervisor with Paco for a new shop in the Galway Shopping Centre on 1st October 2012 having seen an advertisement in the Galway Advertiser. She submits that she was delighted to be called to interview on three days later. As the shop was not open yet, the interview was held in a nearby coffee shop.
2.2 Ms Butler Duffy submits that she likes to be punctual so she and her husband went to the café early. She submits she observed the interview of an other candidate going on for an hour. Ms Butler Duffy’s interview started late and only lasted ten minutes.
2.3 The complainant submits that she was very disappointed at this as she had alot of experience in the retail sector. She believes she was not given an opportunity to display her skills as the interview was so short. She submits that this was because of her age (She is a mature woman). She said the experience dented her confidence.
Summary of the respondent’s case
3.1 The respondent did not attend the hearing as it is in liquidation. However, in their written submits the respondent utterly refutes any allegation of discrimination on the ground of age. The respondent submits that Ms Butler-Duffy was not a suitable candidate. In fact nobody they interviewed was deemed suitable. The respondent submits that she was not fully prepared for the interview and did not demonstrate knowledge of the Paco brand and its target market. Her answers were theoretical and she did not demonstrate retail experience. Ms C, who interviewed her, said the complainant kept referring to her work with helping the unemployed rather than her experience in the fashion retail sector. However, in the contemporaneous notes of the interview that were submitted Ms C referred favourably to her punctuality, appearance and the answer she gave to the sales question. The respondent denies the previous candidate’s interview took an hour and the complainant’s only 10 minutes. Each interview took thirty minutes.
3.2They fully accept that Ms Butler Duffy’s interview started ten minutes late but submits that this is normal during a busy working day especially when a shop is about to open. However, the late starting time did not mean the complainant was short-changed in terms of time. None of the three candidates met the standard and they subsequently promoted somebody internally. The respondent points out that 58% of its managers are over 40.
Conclusions of the Equality Officer
4.1.Section 6(1) of the Act provides that discrimination shall be taken to occur where on any of the discriminatory grounds mentioned in subsection (2) one person is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated. The discriminatory ground in this case is age. In reaching my decision, I have taken into account all of the submissions, written and oral, made by the parties.
4.2 In evaluating the evidence before me, I must first consider whether the complainant has established a prima facie case pursuant to Section 85A of the Act. The Labour Court has held consistently that the facts from which the occurrence of discrimination may be inferred must be of ‘sufficient significance’ before a prima facie case is established and the burden of proof shifts to the respondent.
4.3 While the other people interviewed were younger than Ms Butler Dufy, neither received the position. Therefore it is difficult for the complainant to establish the first limb of the burden of proof – less favourable treatment. I found the complainant to be a truthful witness. She answered questions honestly even if the answers did not support her case. She admitted that no question that could be linked to her age in any way was asked. She submits that it was just a feeling that she got. That is insufficient to establish a nexus to the age ground. Therefore the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
Decision
5.1 I have concluded my investigation of Ms Butler-Duffy’s complaint and hereby make the following decision in accordance with Section 79(6) of the Acts:
the complainant has failed to establish the facts from which it may be presumed that she was discriminated on the grounds of age.
Therefore I find against the complainant.
_______________
Orlaith Mannion
Equality Officer