Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mohamed  Saad

Maynooth University

Representatives

Donal Hamilton of McCann Fitzgerald

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-00042552-001

17/02/2021

The complainant alleges he was discriminated against contrary to the Employment Equality Acts on the grounds of race and religion in relation to access to employment when he applied for the position of Assistant Professor/Lecturer in the Department of Experimental Physics. The respondent denies the allegation. A hearing took place over two days on 5 April 2022 and 28 June 2022.

The complainant submits he applied for the position of Assistant Professor/Lecturer post at the Departmental Physics in Maynooth University. On 19 August 2020 he had an online interview. On 21 August 2020 he received an email from the Human Resources office to say he had not been successful and that he was the reserve candidate. He was told that the interview board had been impressed with his application but it considered another candidate more closely met the requirements of the post. On 24 August the complainant asked, by email, the specific requirements that the recommended candidate has met over his extensive, teaching, research and industrial experience, qualifications and track record. He was informed of his interview scores; he was given a total score of 74/100, divided into the following headings: teaching 46/60, research 13/20 and admin/outreach 15/20. However, he did not get a reply to his question about the specific requirements that the recommended candidate had met over his experience and qualifications, so he sent another email. He sent a further email three days later with questions about the scores he was given against his experience and qualifications, and he asked for a copy of the interview notes. On 31 August he received an email from the chair of the interview board which told him that “the primary reason for the score being less than I may have expected was due to the poor quality of your presentation”.

The complainant found this a very poor justification as the presentation only lasted ten minutes out the total time for the interview of over an hour. The complainant asked for further feedback and breakdown of the interview scores. He was unhappy with a further response from the chair of the interview board. The complainant kept on trying to get satisfactory explanation to his queries; particularly regarding the breakdown of marks in each category and the marks allocated to the recommended candidate and wanting to see the interview notes for himself and the recommended candidate. He also asked questions about the race, colour, nationality, ethnic and national origin of the staff the Department of Experimental Physics and the successful candidate. In October 2020 the chair of the interview board replied that he was satisfied the respondent had provided sufficient feedback and information to his questions.

The complainant submits he is an Arab/African Black Muslim Egyptian, who was granted Irish citizenship in 2017. He says those with similar characteristics are under-represented in recruitment for academic positions at the Department of Experimental Physics at Maynooth University and this gives rise to an inference of discrimination in his non-selection; given his qualifications, experience and track record.

The respondent submits in June/July 2020 they advertised the role of Assistant Professor/Lecturer on a one-year contract. The advertisement noted the successful candidate would need to have a proven record of teaching and research appropriate to career stage, though the role was primarily a teaching role, with candidates expected to take on a full teaching load in undergraduate and postgraduate programmes in the Department of Experimental Physics. The successful candidate would be welcome to pursue their own research in addition to this.

A selection board was convened to assess the applications. All the members of the selection board had attended interview training which included discrimination and unconscious bias. Fifteen candidates applied and five were deemed suitable to interview. The interviewees were to present on “The second law of thermodynamics”, a topic aimed at undergraduates attending their first dedicated thermodynamic course. All interviews were scheduled for 19 August 2020. Before the interviews were held the selection panel agreed a set of criteria in consideration of the role description set out in the advertisement. The criteria were: teaching 60%, outreach/service 20% and research 20%.

All five candidates were interviewed and assessed objectively on the basis of the objective criteria. The presentation was viewed as a significant and important part of the interview and candidates were instructed to present for no longer than 10 minutes. The selection panel considered the questions to be asked and assigned certain questions to each member.

At interview the complainant was found to have extensive teaching experience and a strong track record of academic leadership. He scored highly in the area of outreach activity and received a total of 74 points. The highest ranking candidate received a score of 80 point, he accepted the offer of appointment and work for the respondent until his one year contract expired. The complainant was placed third and was informed his application was unsuccessful on 21 August 2020. The complainant raised a number of queries and the chair of the interview board explained “the primary reason for the score being less than you may have expected is due to the poor quality of your presentation. This was a demonstration of your ability to put your teaching skills into practice. The issues included

·       It was difficult to identify a coherent thread in the presentation, as it was being given. It was clearer in hindsight

·       The slides very busy, overloaded, and lacking in explanation

·       The presentation was not inspiring or engaging

·       Timing was poor.

The weakness of the presentation argued for a lower score, but this was mitigated by your extensive experience and your answers to the questions. That said, it was a weakness and the scores reflect that weakness.

I hope this answers your questions. I would like to repeat that we found you to be appointable and we were confident you could do the job, but in this competition, you were not the top-ranked candidate.”

Following further correspondence with the complainant the chair of the interview board replied; “In terms of teaching, the presentation influenced all aspects of the teaching assessment. There was not a specific subdivision for just the presentation. In terms of research and admin/outreach, there were also no individual sub-divisions of the marks, but a composite result. Please note that judgements on research on based on what is appropriate for the career stage of the applicant, allowing us to compare different applicants at different stages. Under research, the focus was a composite judgement on research achievements and the potential to contribute research going forward while at Maynooth. There was also a consideration of your ability to continue your research here at Maynooth. Your research would be difficult to support at Maynooth as we do not have the facilities, but this was only part of the consideration. We did note that you were continuing to publish even when you did not have extensive opportunities. Under administration and outreach, again the result was a composite judgement based on two elements. In terms of administration for this position we were looking for module level administration and basic department service – as appropriate for this position. In addition we were looking for a range of outreach activities – such as student recruitment, supporting students, etc. We noted your experience and your outreach activities and gave a strong mark in that category. I hope this explains the outcome a bit further.”

The respondent submits they can show the successful candidate, on the basis of objective evidence and following an impartial and transparent selection process in which all candidates were treated fairly, was the most suitable candidate for the role.

The complainant has failed to illustrate any facts from which discrimination may be deduced and the onus of proof is on the complainant to establish a prima facie case under the Employment Equality Acts. The complainant has failed to establish a link between the discriminatory grounds and less favourable treatment. The respondent submits he has failed to do this as all candidates were treated the same.

The Complainant is claiming that he was discriminated against on the Race and Religion grounds pursuant to the Employment Equality Acts which states:

“6.—(1) For the purposes of this Act and without prejudice to its provisions relating to discrimination occurring in particular circumstances, discrimination shall be taken to occur where—

(a) 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) (in this Act referred to as the ‘‘discriminatory grounds’’)”

Section 6(2)(e) provides that as between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds are, inter alia:

(e) that one has a different religious belief from the other, or that one has a religious belief and the other has not (in this Act, referred to as ‘‘the religion ground’’),

‘‘religious belief’’ includes religious background or outlook;

 (h) that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins (in this Act referred to as “the ground of race”)

The questions the complainant raised with the respondent were around what he considered were the marks he was awarded, given his qualifications, experience and track record, and the marks he received compared to the other candidates. The respondent said the complainant was given good marks in all categories and was considered employable for the one-year post. However, they explained, in some detail, the complainant was marked down for his presentation and that this was an important part of the interview because it was a full teaching post. The respondent gave a good response to the complainant’s questions following the interview but the complainant did not accept the response.

Shortly before the first day of hearing the complainant made a further written submission which included the accusation that “I was asked by Prof Farrell (the chair of the interview board) a very sensitive and surprising question about the “difference between Egyptian students and teaching in Egypt in comparison to Irish students & teaching in Ireland”!!!” He claims this shows a difference of treatment between him and the successful candidate and the second placed candidate. He repeated this accusation in evidence at the hearing and said he was not asked about his work in Nottingham Trent University. In evidence at the hearing Professor Farrell said he could not remember asking the question about working in Egypt but was not denying he had asked it. He said different countries have different methodologies and the question would have been asked to explore this. He would have asked other candidates similar questions, including the second ranked candidate who had worked in the USA.

The complainant applied for a one-year contract as Assistant Professor/Lecturer and the post details sent to all applicants stated; “The person appointed will have a proven track record of teaching and research, appropriate to career stage. He/she will be expected to make strong contribution to the teaching and research programme of the Department and undertake teaching duties on the Department’s undergraduate and postgraduate programmes.

The successful applicant will be required to take on a full teaching load but is welcome to pursue their research in addition to this.”

At the hearing the chair of the interview gave a detailed breakdown of the marking system adopted by the interview board for shortlisting the applicants and for the interviews. Together, with a breakdown of the marks allocated to the complainant, the successful applicant and the second placed applicant. He explained the complainant scored well in all three areas and was considered appointable but there were two other applicants who scored higher.

The complainant scored 46/60 for teaching; he had a lot of experience and delivered a presentation that was traditional, pitched at a higher level than requested, exceeded the allotted time and was difficult to follow. He scored 13/20 for research; as he had a long record but there had been a long gap, and there were concerns about his ability to carry out his research at Maynooth. He scored 15/20 for Admin/Outreach, this was a good score and recognised his work on Egyptian television.

The successful candidate scored 52/60 for teaching; he had a lack of experience with final year students but his presentation was delivered in the time frame, moved quickly and was light on the maths, the board formed the opinion he had an ability to teach a range of subjects. He scored 8/20 on research as he was doing nothing at the time but they heard his plans for research. He scored 20/20 for Amin/Outreach, a high score warranted by his success in obtaining funding.

I heard evidence at the hearing in relation to the question asked of the complainant about his teaching experience in Egypt. In isolation it could give an inference of a discriminatory outlook by the questioner. However, I have to look at the interview process as a whole and I accept the evidence of the chair of the interview board that international experience was explored with candidates where it was relevant. The nature of the question as detailed by the complainant, in the context of this interview process, does not give rise to an inference of discrimination under the Employment Equality Acts.

Furthermore, having considered all the evidence presented both in written submissions and in oral evidence at the hearings, I can find nothing else in the interview process and marking that can give rise to an inference of discrimination on the grounds of race or religion. Therefore, I find that the complainant was not discriminated against on the race or religion ground.

For the reasons given above I find that the complainant was not discriminated against on the race and religion ground in relation to access to employment.

Access to employment – race and religion – no discrimination