Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Applicant

A Solicitors Firm

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00025504-001

02/02/2019

The complainant has a 2:1 Law degree from University College Cork which she obtained in 2009. She went on to complete her LL.M. from the same University in 2010. In 2015 she completed her FE1 exams. In the summer of 2015 she worked with a small solicitor’s firm as a paralegal for a couple of months. In October, 2017 she did a diploma in law from a private university in London.

In 2018 she worked for one of the larger firms of solicitors in Dublin as a paralegal.

In or around October,2018 she saw an advertisement in the Law Society gazette. The position was for a trainee solicitor, in the respondent’s Dublin office. She applied for the position. There were 25 applicants who, after stage one were narrow down to 17 people. She was one of those. The complainant was informed that she would have to undergo a ‘critical reasoning test’. However, she was never given that test by the respondent. The respondent in their response states the results of the ‘critical reasoning test’ were the reason she did not progress to the next stage of the process.

The complainant strongly believes that if she was a male with the qualifications that she has, she would have been given the job. The profession is a male-dominated one and males throughout the Country are preferred over females. The complainant was discriminated on grounds of gender, age and civil status by every firm in Ireland that she applied for a job in.

On the application form the complainant was asked to set out her age and civil status. The complainant said that she was single and was aged 33. The complainant believes that she was treated less favourably than a married woman with children. She is of the belief that a married woman with children would get more respect and that the respondent would have an obligation to give such a candidate the job so that she could feed her children.

The complainant is also of the belief that because she is 33 years old that the respondents favoured the younger applicants. However, the complainant admitted that she does not know who the respondent hired, their gender, civil status or age. The complainant admitted that she has come to her conclusions based on a general assumption of how the legal profession operates in this Country.

The complainant did not request any specific information from the respondent in relation to the application process or in relation to those candidates who were successful. The complainant did not know that she could do that and was hopeful that the respondent would give her the information during the hearing.

Preliminary Application.

The complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on any of the three grounds. The complainant has made sweeping statements and allegations based on nothing more that her belief however the complainant has no facts whatsoever to back up those beliefs. The complainant does not know who the successful candidates where. The complainant does not know their civil status, gender or age. The complainant has filed this claim against the respondent based on nothing more than her general assumption of how Solicitors firms treat applicants, such as herself, in this Country.

As the respondent’s are a law firm and the complainant’s have brought the same claim against multiple law firms in this jurisdiction, I find that it would be inappropriate to name the parties in the decision.

The probative burden of proof that rests on the complainant is set out in Melbury Developments Limited v Arturs Valpeters IEDA09171:

"...Complainant must first establish facts from which discrimination may be inferred. What those facts are will vary from case to case and there is no closed category of facts which can be relied upon. All that is required is that they be of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination. However, they must be established as facts on credible evidence. Mere speculation or assertions, unsupported by evidence, cannot be elevated to a factual basis upon which an inference of discrimination can be drawn. Section 85 (4) 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. "

The complainant herein, on her own admission, has based her entire claim on nothing more than her own assumptions. She has no evidence, documentary or otherwise to support her allegations. Assumptions, unsupported by evidence, can never form the foundations for a discrimination claim.  

I am satisfied that the complainant has failed to establish a Prima Facia case of discrimination against the respondent on any of the grounds set out in her claim form.

The complaint fails.

The complaint fails.