Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Sarah Adam

Dublin and Dun Laoghaire Education and Training Board

Representatives

John Curran BL

IBEC

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00039138-001

11/08/2020

The complainant worked as an art teacher in a school in the respondent network. Her employment commenced on the 1st September 2019 and ended on the 31st August 2020. The complainant was maternity leave between the 16th December 2019 and the 14th June 2020. The complaints relate to discrimination on grounds of gender and family status in respect of the interview of the 6th July 2020. The respondent denies the claim. The complainant’s monthly remuneration was €4,198.50.

The complainant outlined that the Employment Equality claims touch on gender, family status and age. The complainant outlined that she was dismissed due to her pregnancy and there was a contravention of the Maternity Protection Act.

The complainant outlined that she has extensive art and teaching qualifications and experience. Her art forms part of the State collection. She also has years of experience teaching in DEIS schools.

The complainant commenced this role on the 1st September 2019 and went on maternity leave on the 16th December 2019. She gave birth to twins on the 12th February 2020 and her maternity leave ended on the 14th June 2020. She was interviewed for the role on the 6th July 2020 and received the letter of rejection on the 20th July 2020. She appealed this on the 22nd July 2020 and her employment terminated on the 31st August 2020. Per Circular 25/2015, she would have been entitled to a contract of indefinite duration had she been appointed in 2020.

The complainant outlined that she was kept on pay roll all the way through her maternity leave. She did not avail on additional maternity leave as they were on summer break.

The complainant outlined that she had been interviewed for the original post and contrasted the interviews between the one in 2019 and the one in 2020. The same interview panel had conducted both interviews. She outlined that the school was a challenging environment that posed health and safety risks to her. In her written submission, the complainant refers to two students being suspended because of their conduct to her.

The complainant outlined that she had an amicable discussion with the principal on the 13th December 2019 about the pregnancy and her twins. Ms A was to cover the complainant’s role during the maternity leave and the complainant and Ms A were doing a handover that day. The complainant outlined that the principal said that the interview that would take place in 2020 was a mere formality and the role would be kept open for the complainant.

The complainant said that the school closed on the 19th March 2020 because of the pandemic. Ms A had only been working in the school for three months by this time. The complainant later attended online training in May and June 2020, completing CPDs while on maternity leave.

The complainant outlined that in 2020 there were two candidates for the art teacher role, her and Ms A. The same interview panel had interviewed candidates for other roles that same day. The complainant said that her interview only lasted 24 minutes. The complainant stated that the Vice Principal had been present in the interview room but not a formal member of the interview panel.

The complainant outlined that she had completed a comprehensive application form. The complainant outlined that the chair of the interview panel started the interview by saying ‘you’ve worked in a lot of schools’. The complainant said that this was intimidating and raised an inference of age discrimination. The second question asked about continual professional development in the last year. The complainant asked how could she have completed more continual professional development when she had been on protected leave. The complainant said that she was given no marks for the online tour of the art museum despite this being a notable achievement. While giving examples of extra curricular activities, the complainant was asked ‘Do you know what an extra curricular course is?’, to which she answered yes. She found this exchange to be humiliating. The complainant was asked whether she had joined the teacher leadership team in the last year, even though she had not been allowed to do so because of her pregnancy.

The complainant said that the interview panel did not mention her qualifications, even though they were superior. She also demonstrated using online classroom functionality rather than just playing youtube videos. Ms A did not do continual professional development and had not attended the CPDs in May and June 2020, which the complainant had attended.

The complainant said that there were interview notes from two members of the panel. The Chair’s notes were missing from her interview and that of Ms A. The complainant had seen the other panel member write notes but not on the interview document used by the others; these notes were not produced.

The complainant said that it was unusual for the candidates to get the exact same marks. The interview notes were date-marked the 27th July. She said that she was undermarked for qualifications and this raised an inference of discrimination. Not taking account of all the application form was a discriminatory omission.

The complainant outlined that following her dismissal, she lost mortgage approval. Her appeal letter was ignored, and the respondent rejected her proposal of finding another school in its network.

Evidence of the complainant

Having affirmed, the complainant outlined that she missed the first two days of the role in 2019 as she was in hospital. She had given the respondent a letter from the maternity hospital. The complainant said that she worked in the school from the 3rd September to the 16th December 2019. She described it as a tough school to work in and that she felt unsafe. She said that some of the classes were very difficult. While there was team teaching for one class in particular, the team teacher colleague was very inconsistent. The complainant had sought to contribute to Teacher Leadership by establishing a placement scheme with her husband’s company. She spoke to the DEIS coordinator about this, who told the complainant not to worry and to come back with the initiative next year, after her pregnancy.

The complainant said that she did a handover with Ms A, the art teacher who was covering her. The complainant said that she attended two sessions of online training regarding teaching online during the pandemic. She completed about 10 CPD sessions before this role and also did CPD every third Wednesday as part of her Croke Park hours.

The complainant outlined that the first question at the interview was about her working at a lot of schools. It had been difficult for her to secure a long-term contract and that it felt like she was floating around. She answered the question by saying that each school had brought her invaluable experience. She felt that the tone of the question was undermining and belittling of her. The complainant said that discipline in the classroom was not raised in the interview.  

The complainant outlined that she got no or insufficient marks for the online platform she devised and which she had hoped to impress them. She was asked a question about what her follow up would be to the platform and she mentioned that Teams had improved. A member of the panel made a flippant comment regarding their IT difficulties that day and she said that this undermined her whole part of her presentation.

The complainant said that she was put under pressure at the interview by a named panel member about extra curricular activities. She had hoped that the Principal would jump in. The complainant was disappointed that the Principal asked her about the complainant getting involved in Teaching Leadership when she knew that the complainant could not get involved.

Following the ending of her employment with the respondent, the complainant had covered a maternity post in 2021 and this was to finish in February 2022. She had also subbed for three weeks.

In cross-examination, the complainant said that she had not made a complaint to the Principal. She did not raise technical issues about the interview as she felt that this would jeopardise her success at the interview. The complainant accepted that CPD hours were mandatory. The complainant outlined that the principal had mentioned discipline at the interview in the context of classroom management.

The complainant’s husband outlined that this was devastating for the complainant, who was passionate about art and education. The complainant had ten years of insecure roles and prepared very well for the role and the online museum visits.

The respondent denied the complaints of discrimination, harassment and victimisation. It relied on section 10 of the Maternity Protection Act and that the complainant’s maternity leave had already finished when her employment terminated.

Evidence of the Principal

Having affirmed, the Principal outlined that she was the school principal of the respondent college. She had sat on many interview panels. While the complainant was deemed appointable, the other candidate did better of the two candidates. In respect of ‘professional practice’, the complainant addressed four competencies: ‘expectations’, ‘differentiation’, ‘good planning’ and ‘the need for strategies for SEN students’ while the successful candidate made seven links raising expectations good class organisation strategies for SEN importance of differentiation and the importance of providing for student reflection and student engagement.

In respect of ‘School and Community’, the successful candidate was awarded an additional half-mark on competency 5.3 for her cited example of extra curricular activities. She outlined that the questions regarding extra curricular activities were of importance as the school was closed due to the pandemic. The Principal did not agree with the complainant’s description of the tone of the interview.

The Principal said that the Teacher Leadership programme had taken place in early 2019 so the complainant could not have joined it. The programme took a different form in 2020. She said that each DEIS school has a DEIS team and each teacher is expected to take part.

The Principal said that she was not aware of the complainant’s pregnancy until October 2019 and she never said that the role was guaranteed. She said that discipline in the classroom was raised at the interview in the context of professional practice.  

The Principal said that the question asked about actual CPD was not taken into account in assessing the candidates. In respect of Professional Development, the panel adjudged that both candidates had discharged the three competencies.

In cross-examination, the principal said that she was aware of the complainant’s absence for the first three days of school. She accepted that no risk assessment was carried out. The principal was asked why the complainant did not score better with her 12 years of teaching experience; the principal replied that the teaching competencies were laid out and there is no overt reference to teacher experience. The panel marked against the teacher competencies and experience was not the only factor. She said that the other candidate had a four-year degree course in NCAD and obtained the equivalent of a teacher trainer qualification.

The complainant worked at the respondent school from the 1st September 2019 until the expiry of her contract on the 31st August 2020. She was on maternity leave from the 16th December 2019 to the 14th June 2020. The complainant was interviewed for the role on the 6th July 2020 and informed that she was unsuccessful on the 20th July 2020.

I make these findings on the basis of the parties’ evidence as well as the submissions and documentation they submitted both before and after the hearing.

Employment Equality Act – gender discrimination

It is well-established that a decision not to renew an employee’s fixed-term contract because of their pregnancy amounts to gender discrimination, where it is proven (see Melgar v Ayuntamienta de los Barrios (C-438/99) and Tele-Denmark (C-109/00)).     

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent on the 1st September 2019, pursuant to a 22 hours pro rata contract. The complainant commenced maternity leave on the 16th December 2019 and as noted, this ended in June 2020. The complainant was aware that she would have to be interviewed in the summer of 2020, per the Circular. There was a conflict in evidence between the parties whether the Principal had informed her that this would be a mere formality. While there were differing accounts of what was said, the complainant attended the interview on the 6th July 2020 and per her evidence, prepared thoroughly for it.

The complainant had met Ms A on the 13th December 2019 to complete a handover as Ms A was to work during the complainant’s maternity leave. Ms A was also interviewed for the role in July 2020 and was successful in obtaining the role.

The complainant’s fixed-term contract and her employment ended on the 31st August 2020. She appealed this and also asked if there were other opportunities in the respondent network. Earlier in 2019, the complainant had worked in another school in the respondent network, covering a period of leave. This did not yield anything.

Burden of proof

Section 85A of the Employment Equality Act and Article 19 of the underlying Recast Directive (2006/54/EC) require that a complainant establish facts of such significance that raise the inference or presumption of discrimination.

In line with the well-established Labour Court authorities of Mitchell v Southern Health Board [2001] ELR 201 and Valpeters v Melbury Developments [2010] ELR 64, what constitutes something of such significance to raise an inference of discrimination varies according to the relevant factual matrix in each case. If the relevant facts are within the exclusive knowledge or near-exclusive knowledge of the respondent, then the inference or presumption is quickly raised; it falls on the respondent to show that there was no breach of the principle of equal treatment. A complainant’s ‘mere assertions’ will not raise an inference of discrimination where there are relevant facts which the complainant can be expected to ascertain.  

As held by the Labour Court in Moore Walsh v Waterford Institute of Technology EDA042, ‘in cases involving the filling of posts it is not the function of the Court to substitute its views on the relative merit of candidates for those of the designated decision makers. Rather, its role is to ensure that the selection process is not tainted by unlawful discrimination. Consequently the Court will not normally look behind a decision unless there is clear evidence of unfairness in the selection process or manifest irrationality in the result.’

The questions in this case are whether the complainant has established facts of such significance that raise the inference of discrimination, including whether there is sufficient evidence of unfairness in the process or manifest irrationality. As noted, an interview panel is best placed to judge the relative merits of candidates. Perfection is not the standard; not every discrepancy in an interview process raises an inference of discrimination.  While an adjudication officer looking at a process might not agree with the decision of the panel, this is not, itself, evidence of discrimination. A complainant is not required to prove an intention to discriminate, and an act could be discriminatory even though the party doing the act does not intend to discriminate.

Relevant findings

The first finding to make is that the interview panel was aware that the complainant had been on maternity leave and that she had been pregnant. The Principal was obviously aware of this and also present in the interview room was the vice principal. The notes of the other candidate, Ms A, refer to her working in the school as maternity leave cover and it was obvious that the person whose maternity leave she was covering was the complainant. I also note that the interview panel in 2019 were not aware of the complainant’s pregnancy.

The complainant suggested that an inference of discrimination could be inferred from comments she attributed to the Principal in the conversation of the 16th December 2019. I do not draw an inference of discrimination from the conversation. The complainant and the Principal had an ordinary conversation about the complainant’s pregnancy and having twins. It was also too remote from the interview and the ending of the fixed term.

The complainant suggested that an inference of discrimination could be drawn from the interview panel not complying with the technical requirements of the Teams interview. I do not agree that such an inference can be drawn. While there were certainly technical difficulties with the interview and this was frustrating for the complainant, I do not find that it is a fact of such significance that raises an inference of discrimination.

In making the findings below, I have considered the evidence of the parties given at the hearing. I have considered the written analysis of both parties, including the documentation submitted after the hearing. I have compared how the complainant and Ms A were treated, but also how the complainant fared in 2019 and 2020. The same interview panel conducted both interviews. As set out in the case law, interview notes play an important role in assessing the fairness and rationality of the process.

In the 2020 interviews, the candidates received equal scores in three categories. Ms A obtain one higher mark in ‘professional practice’ and a half-mark more in ‘contribution to school and community’. I, therefore, consider whether the decision to award Ms A these higher marks was clearly unfair or manifestly irrational, but also the decision to award the two candidates the same marks in the other competencies. I find that, taken together, the complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination for the following reasons.

Closed nature of questioning

Tone is subjective and the parties disagreed as to the tone of the interview. The complainant described it as undermining and belittling, a description the Principal did not accept. There was no dispute as to the actual words used in the questions. It was not disputed that the first question was ‘you’ve worked in a lot of schools, haven’t you?’ This is a striking opening question of an interview. It is not a broad, open question to allow the interviewee ease into the interview. It was directed at the complainant’s CV and required her to justify her career to date. It put the complainant on the defensive from the off. Even if the question could be interpreted as a comment on the precarity of employment in education, it was a closed question with clear, negative connotations. The guidelines state that candidates should be questioned in the same area and there is no suggestion that Ms A was asked a similar question. Other closed questions included ‘do you know what an extra curricular activity is?’ It is also striking that these closed, direct questions were a feature of the complainant’s 2020 interview and not a feature of her interview in 2019. For these reasons, I find that the closed nature of the questions, in particular the first question, is a fact of such significance that raises the inference of discrimination.

Continual professional development

Early in the interview the complainant was asked about continual professional development in the last year. The interview notes of the complainant record ‘CPD – some but not enough’. The notes for Ms A record ‘CPD – not yet. Future – art therapy & mental health’. I note that CPD was also asked about at the 2019 interview. It was suggested at the hearing that the CPD question did not form part of the assessment of candidates. There is nothing in the interview notes to support that interpretation. The CPD question played a prominent role in the 2020 interview, being one of the first questions asked with no qualification that it was not part of candidate assessment. The finding that the complainant did not have ‘enough’ CPD was manifestly irrational. First, despite being on maternity leave, the complainant had more recent CPD than Ms A, having attended the May and June CPDs, which Ms A did not attend. Second, the complainant had years of CPD, as set out in her application. It is manifestly irrational to find that the complainant did not have enough CPD.

References to ‘last year’

The interview took place in July 2020 and the complainant’s maternity leave had ended in June 2020. The period of maternity leave commenced in December 2019. Obviously, the complainant’s last year encompassed the period of maternity leave.

It is, therefore, striking that on three occasions, the complainant was asked to give examples that occurred in the last year. This formulation was used in the questions addressing CPD, Teacher Leadership and extra curricular activities. Asking for examples specifically in the ‘last year’ is challenging for an employee who has been on protected leave. Do they respond that the last year includes this protected leave? Do they use a year-reference period that predates the leave, but then they are giving older examples? The respondent was clear that it scored per the competency framework, but there is nothing in the framework about examples having to be from the last year. There is also nothing in the interview guidelines about focusing on the last year.

The framing of questions to ask for examples from the last year would have a discombobulating effect on any candidate for whom this encompasses protected leave such as maternity leave. This is apparent in the complainant’s case as she was said not to have enough CPD within the last year. She gave examples of CPD including those undertaken during the maternity leave, but she would have had more examples to give, had she not been on maternity leave.

The complainant outlined that a difficult part of the interview was the discussion about extra curricular activities, with a panel member telling her what extra curricular meant. The complainant had given examples, for example previous success in Junk Kouture. The difficult part in the interview arose as the complainant sought to give examples from the last year, with the questioner communicating that they were not sufficient. It is obvious that using a reference period of a year to source examples of extra curricular activities would cause difficulties for an employee who had been on maternity leave during this year. The focus on the last year led to this part of the interview being combative, leaving the complainant with the clear impression that the interview was not going well.

The complainant was specifically asked about what team leadership teams she had joined during that year. In October 2019, the complainant had sought to join a team leadership team led by the DEIS coordinator in relation to a particular TY placement project. The complainant outlined that the DEIS coordinator advised her that they would work on the project after her pregnancy. At the interview, the complainant was specifically asked about her team leadership roles at the school, i.e. within the last year. This was a direct question that posed obvious difficulties for an employee who had been on maternity leave for half of that year. There were plenty of ways that team leadership in a DEIS context could have been explored at interview, using open questions. This would allow the interviewee, in particular someone who was recently on protected leave, to use examples from a broader timeframe.

Using questions that specifically sought examples from the last year raises an inference of discrimination in circumstances where the complainant was on maternity leave for a substantial part of that year, a fact the interview panel were aware of.

Personalised comments

The interview guidelines outline that appropriate notes should be kept of the interview and that they should record facts and not opinions. The interview notes include personalised comments about the complainant. They refer to the complainant not having enough CPD and giving vague answers on rapport building, rather than what CPD she did or what she said. The same can be said for the double question marks next to the word ‘discipline’, which I interpret as questioning the complainant’s ability to control the classroom.

The purpose of the interview note is to record the examples given by the interviewee, in order for them to be ‘compared rigorously with the selection criteria’ as required by the interview guidelines. It is difficult to see how an interviewer who makes such findings during the course of the interview can be said to be rigorously assessing the examples given against the competency framework. The personalised findings made during the interview is a fact of significance that raises the inference of discrimination.

Qualifications

The respondent interview guidelines state that ‘candidates have the same opportunity to demonstrate their qualifications and experience.’ It was an essential requirement of the role that the candidate have ‘the academic qualifications, enthusiasm and confidence to teach the subject area’. Ms A was adjudged to have ‘good’ qualifications and no such positive comment is attributed to the complainant. On paper, the complainant had better and more extensive qualifications, both in art education and art. She had a degree in art from 2002 and a HDip in art education in 2007. She was a State examiner for 7 years. She had a full registration with the Teaching Council, while Ms A’s was conditional. Insufficient credit was given to the complainant’s qualifications. While this would not raise an inference on its own, it does so when combined with the other elements.

Competency assessment

At the hearing, the Principal read from a competency assessment of the complainant’s application and interview. The Principal prepared this in anticipation of the hearing. It was not sent to the complainant after the interview and was submitted after the hearing.

The assessment document looked at the two competency areas in which Ms A scored higher than the complainant and not the other areas where they scored equally. Ms A was awarded a ‘4’ in professional practice, while the complainant scored a ‘3’. According to the Principal’s analysis, the complainant did not address three competencies in the ‘professional practice’ section. Ms A is said to have addressed these three competencies.

Competency 2.2 is ‘apply their knowledge and experience in facilitating students’ holistic development’. Competency 2.3 is ‘create an environment where students can become active agents in the learning process and develop lifelong learning skills’. Competency 2.4 is ‘establish a climate where learning is valued and fostered and effectively manage the range of behaviours and situations that can occur in the classroom.’

The complainant was said to have made links in ‘the importance of raising expectations’, ‘importance of the use of differentiation’, ‘importance of good planning’ and ‘need for strategies for SEN students’.

Ms A made the same links, except for ‘importance of good planning’. Ms A is said to have made additional links to ‘need to provide positive reinforcement to students’, ‘need for good class organisation’, ‘importance of providing for Student Reflection’ and ‘importance of student engagement’.

The interview notes show that the complainant addressed competencies and made links that are not taken into account by this assessment. The complainant, for example, specifically addressed how to help students with a low sense of self-esteem. This would certainly touch on the three competencies cited above as well as the link of providing positive reinforcement. The interview notes also refer to the complainant emphasising the importance of good planning, again addressing the three competencies she is said not to have addressed.

I, therefore, find that the competency assessment document does not accurately reflect the complainant’s interview, and she was not given sufficient credit for her answers.

Ms A was awarded an extra half-point in the ‘contribution to the school and community section’. This was because she addressed competency 5.3 ‘possess a capacity to support and promote wider student endeavours and overall school development’. It is clear from the interview notes that the complainant gave several answers linked to this competency. This included reaching the final of Junk Kouture, a school play and displaying art as well as a day trip. Some of these examples did not occur within the last year, but the complainant gave them as examples, and they were relevant to the competency.

The fact that the complainant’s answers were not fully taken into account in this competency assessment is a fact that raises the inference of discrimination.

Overall comparison

The complainant describes her very different experiences of her interview in 2019 and 2020. She describes how examples that seemed to be well received in 2019 were not so well received in 2020. The interview notes from 2019 set out what the complainant said, without personal opinion or double question marks. The complainant gave some of the same examples in both interviews, but less weight was given to the Junk Kouture and the print making examples she gave. What was certainly different between the two interviews was that the interview panel did not know in 2019 that the complainant was pregnant, when they knew in 2020 that she had recently returned from maternity leave.

As noted above, there is always an element of subjectivity in the decision of any interview panel. What is required, however, by the interview guidelines and the Employment Equality Act is that each candidate’s application is considered in full and fairly. I agree with the complainant’s assessment that in 2020, not everything she said was given the weight it deserved. This includes credit for her qualifications and the examples she cited. The complainant was put on the spot to give examples arising in the last year, which included 26 weeks of maternity leave. Even where she had examples in areas that Ms A had no examples, the complainant still did not get credit (see CPD). The complainant had greater qualifications and experience, and a full registration with the Teaching Council, while Ms A had lesser qualifications and experience, and a conditional registration. They are of the same gender and what differentiates them is the complainant’s pregnancy and maternity leave in 2020. Both pregnancy and maternity leave are intrinsically linked to gender, and less favourable treatment on grounds of pregnancy and maternity leave is discrimination on grounds of gender.

Rebuttal of the inference of discrimination?

Having found that taken together, the complainant has raised the inference of discrimination on the gender ground, it falls on the respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination. There were the above significant discrepancies in the running of the interview, the questions asked of the complainant and how her answers were recorded and assessed. This did not take place in accordance with the relevant respondent interview guidelines. I have considered the competency assessment submitted by the respondent after the hearing. It does not address why the candidates scored equal marks when the complainant would be expected to score higher than Ms A. The document does not adequately explain how Ms A scored higher in the two categories, as the complainant clearly gave examples that addressed the competencies and made links to requirements of the role. It, therefore, follows that the respondent has not rebutted the inference of discrimination.

Redress

The complainant outlined that she was devastated by the loss of employment. She appealed the decision to end her employment and sought other opportunities in the respondent network. The complainant was not offered another role in the network. The complainant obtained another role, and this was to end in February 2022.

Had the complainant been successful at interview in July 2020, she would have obtained a contract of indefinite duration, per the Circular, at the end of the 2020-2021 school year. The complainant worked in the respondent school for several months before going on protected maternity leave. She gave specific examples of teaching achievements in that time. The complainant demonstrated perseverance; two students were suspended because of their behaviour to the complainant and they later returned to the classroom to be taught by the complainant without further issue. Taken together, this shows that the complainant would have had an extended career in the respondent school. This did not come to fruition because of discrimination on grounds of the complainant’s gender, in particular her pregnancy in 2020 and the recent maternity leave.

In assessing redress, I note that section 82 allows for an order for compensation for the effects of discrimination. In accordance with Article 25 of the Recast Directive, compensation must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. It is clear that the above discrimination had significant effects on the complainant. Her employment did not continue with the respondent, and she had to look for new employment. The complainant challenged the approach and decision of the interview panel, but also sought to explore other opportunities. As reflected in the case law, including of the Labour Court in Croc’s Hair & Beauty v Ahern EDA 195 and of the CJEU in Von Colson etc, the legal protection afforded to gender in particular arising from pregnancy and maternity leave deserves effective, proportionate and dissuasive legal protection. Taking these factors together, I award redress of €35,000.

Other heads of equality claim

The complaint in respect of family status is closely related to the gender discrimination complaint. Matters relating to maternity leave and pregnancy are generally primarily addressed via the gender ground. In this case, for the reasons set out above, I find that what differentiated the complainant between her 2019 and 2020 interviews, and what differentiated the complainant from Ms A in 2020, was that the complainant had two small children. The complainant in 2019 and Ms A in 2020 had different family statuses to the complainant in 2020; they did not have children. I, therefore, find that the complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination on the family status ground, and this has not been rebutted by the respondent. Redress is encompassed in the above award of compensation.

In respect of harassment, while the complainant raised issues about some of the questions asked of her at the interview, they did not constitute harassment. They were not questions that violated the complainant’s dignity. There is insufficient evidence of victimisation. While it is striking that the respondent had no offer to make to a teacher deemed appointable but who was unsuccessful, there is insufficient evidence that this was related to her having made a complaint about the interview process on grounds of gender and family status. In respect of discriminatory dismissal, the complainant’s employment ended on foot of the expiry of the fixed-term. I have found that not renewing the contract was an act of discrimination and this encompasses the ending of the employment. There is no standalone finding of discriminatory dismissal to be made.

CA-00039138-001

I decide that the complainant was discriminated against on grounds of gender and family status and the respondent shall pay to the complainant €35,000 for the effects of discrimination and this is not remuneration. I decide that the complaints of harassment and victimisation are not successful.

Employment Equality Act / gender / Croc’s Hair & Beauty v Ahern / Melgar v Ayuntamienta de los Barrios (C-438/99) / pregnancy & maternity leave / interview