ADJ-00030693

Anonymised Parties

A Nurse Graduate

A Hospital

Representatives

  Self Represented

Sinead Mullins IBEC

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-00039311-001

21/08/2020

The Complainant made a compliant that she was discriminated against in the interview process for a General Nursing position.  The Complainant alleged she had been discriminated in getting a job on the grounds of her anxiety disability, family status, the Respondent not proving a reasonable accommodation for her illness and being treated unfairly relative to others without a disability. All witnesses gave evidence under affirmation.  An application was made in writing by the Complainant prior to the Hearing and at the Hearing that the Decision be anonymised. The Respondent made no objection to this request. In consideration of the request I deem that there are special circumstances involved in this case that justify the anonymisation of the Decision to protect the Complainants personal circumstances.

The Complainant was a Student Nurse and requested that the student allocations officer place her in a particular local hospital as she wanted to work there.  She was assigned to train at the Hospital as part of her course as an Intern and applied for a full-time position and attended for interview. The Complainant stated that she was assiduous in carrying out her duties and had relevant additional qualifications, and vast experience in comparison to the fellow interns who were offered employment there. The Complainant alleged the environment the Hospital was cliquey, and that most staff were related to each other in the Hospital. She alleged this was not coincidental, nor was it an accurate representation of a diverse and equal workforce. The Complainant alleged that staffing involved is cronyism.

The Complainant maintained that her references were from previous employers as the Hospital policy states but that other Interns put down two Clinical Nurse Managers from the Hospital as references in contravention of the Hospital Policy. The Complainant quoted the Hospital selection and recruitment policy 7.5 paragraph 5 which states-“Interviews will focus on a candidate’s skills, talents, qualifications and capacities for the job, as well as the candidates likely ‘fit’ within the organisation…” She also quoted 7.7 paragraph 3 section on reference checking which states “Minimum of two employer references… will be verified by the HR department

The Complainant alleged prior to the interview that she was treated differently to other Interns when she rang in sick and unnecessarily asking her about the nature of her medical certificate which stated “infection” used by her treating GP to avoid embarrassment and the Manager used COVID as an excuse to assault her privacy and dignity at work “in case it was respiratory related” as she stated. Even when the Complainant told her it was not, she insisted on knowing where her infection was. The Complainant felt this was an attempt to deter her from taking time off work and made her feel embarrassed and belittled, like she was not believed, and that the Manager enjoyed asserting her power over the Complainant. 

On an unknown date in 2020 there was a weather warning, the Complainant rang the nursing office to inform them that she could not come in, there were trees down and it was particularly bad weather to drive in. The ADON answered the phone and insisted that she arrange a lift for the Complainant to work and told the Complainant she would ask staff if they lived in her area so that she could get “a lift in with them”. The Complainant alleged this placed her in an awkward position as this was not the only reason she could not come in; it was also highly inappropriate given the circumstances that COVID placed staff in to be taking lifts from colleagues.  On this instance the ADON also approached a colleague and asked her questions as to why the Complainant could not come in when the colleague had further to drive than the Complainant. The Complainant alleged she was not believed and was an inconvenience to disrupt staffing levels and the ADON was disrespectful of her circumstances and felt that cognisance of her own safety was not respected. The Complainant was upset to learn that the ADON had been talking about her to fellow interns. Upon her return to work, the CPC approached her to fill in a “return-to-work form”, which she had never had to do before. Out of frustration she comprehensively and vehemently filled in this paperwork, informing them that she had a medical diagnosis of anxiety, had had a bad car crash when she was pregnant and did not drive for some years after this. The bad weather made her extremely nervous, and she could not bring herself to drive in dangerous weather. The Complainant had a verbal discussion with the CPC regarding this as she was frustrated with the way she had been treated- She stated the CPC was fully aware of her medical conditions and she was never asked for “proof” of same, if this was requested, she would have furnished evidence. 

On another unknown date the ADON approached two fellow interns asking them if the Complainant  had a child when she applied for Force Majeure leave to care for her son she was informed by both regarding this) but she was never asked by the  ADON about this.

On March 13th ,2020 during the pandemic when the school’s first closed the CPC  stated to the Complainant  that we, the interns, “pool our children together” to avoid having time off work i.e. when one person is off they could mind someone else’s children and vice versa. The Complainant feel this comment was an affront and devalued her child. On this occasion the ADON also questioned the Complainant as to why she did not have anyone else to mind her child. 

On an unknown date, a staff nurse in a ward made an unkind comment to the Complainant being an unmarried mother. She overheard the Complainant talking about her son to a patient, who had asked her if she had children. The nurse said to the Complainant at the nurse’s station something along the lines of “God forbid the aul one’s heard you’re an unmarried mother, they would be shocked!! You should pretend you’re married and move a ring on to your wedding finger!” in a joking manner, giving the impression that it was scandalous that the Complainant was an unmarried mother. This was said in front of another nurse and the two of them were laughing at the Complainant. 

The Complainant alleged tbat during her time on a particular ward, she noticed that her fellow intern was being treated more favourably by the Clinical Nurse Manager. She noticed her talking more friendly to her, providing her with effusive praise, and spending significantly more time with her than the Complainant. It was evident that the Complainant was excluded from the same relationship. 

The Complainant alleged that on one occasion a CNM invited an intern into her office and the two of them were going through a folder and book, and she saw this directly and the Intern verified this. The Complainant subsequently got sight of the Book on the desk and it contained future developments/plans/initiatives within the Hospital which she came to learn in the interview were one of the questions being asked and was not common knowledge or available on the internet.

The Complainant alleged that one intern (who also has a sister and uncle that work in the Hospital) that her sister knew who the Hospital would be taking on before the interview date. 

The Complainant alleged that one manager was also passing on information to select interns and not divulging the same to others- leaving one with no doubt whatsoever that their practices were discriminatory in nature. Three select interns were made privy to a lot of information from two ward managers, and were particularly well informed about dates, who was interviewing etc when others were not privy to the same information making preparation for the interview unfair.

CNM’s knew where interns would be placed, giving the appearance that they helped who they wanted to work with- and not on an individual’s merit. The Complainant also alleged that a Manager also provided an intern with interview questions. 

When the interviews came, candidates were given the choice to go with a phone call or coming into the hospital for an interview. Being mindful of contracting COVID the Complainant thought it would be a better idea to limit her  presence in the hospital and selected the phone call option for the interview.  The Complainant alleged the phone line was poor, that she couldn’t hear what the Interviewers were saying on occasions and it was like they were far away from the phone. The Complainant thought that the interviewers seemed nonchalant and un-enthusiastic when speaking to her, and at times did not allow her to finish answering questions- this happened on numerous occasions throughout the interview. The Complainant felt like she was wasting their time on the call.

Three of the interns on the group chat were informed that they had succeeded in the job interview on the 06/08/20 and they posted the same on the group chat. The Complainant and another Intern were not told for some time later where we were both had to chase up the result and the HR Manager appeared to be avoiding them.  The Complainant got a hold of the HR  Manager on the 13/08/20 via phone call and she informed the Complainant she was unsuccessful in the interview and did not get a job. The Complainant voiced her concerns on the call to the HR Manager that she was treated unfairly and told her she would have got a job there too had managers also helped her with the interview questions. The Complainant informed the HR Manager that she felt that the CNM’s did this to hand select who they wanted to work on their wards with them. The HR Manager appeared intrigued and invited the Complainant to make a formal complaint, however she did not as she was in a vulnerable position as an intern and was afraid of victimisation and retaliation. The Complainant felt she could have been failed on her placement there in retaliation, plus she also had a dim view of the practices and processes in the Hospital. She did have a meeting with the HR Manager  where they discussed her concerns at length. 

Based on the written submission and oral evidence of the Complainant, I have tried to distil down the Complainants main allegations and list these below; 

The Complainant alleged she had an anxiety disability that the Respondent was aware of but they never asked her for any medical evidence of it. 

The Complainant alleged she had a hearing issue and as the interview was conducted by phone due to Covid she should have been given a special accommodation. 

The Complainant alleged she was discriminated against because she was a single mother during the internship and this was frowned upon by management at the time and this influenced the decision not to offer the Complainant a full time role. 

The Complainant alleged that other job applicants were brought to meetings and were they were given help in preparing for the interviews.

The Complainant alleged that other job applicants were given the interview questions in advance of the interviews and she was not. 

The Complainant alleged that one of the Interview panel  was a close neighbour of a job applicant and was seen going into the estate where the job applicant lived. 

The Complainant alleged she had better qualifications and experience than the other candidates and this was not reflected in the interview scores. 

The Complainant alleged the Respondent did not choose the most qualified person for the position, nor did all interns have employers as references. Furthermore, the interview scores provided by the Hospital equally scored her and fellow job applicants for relevant experience and education when this was blatantly inaccurate. The Complainant had at the time approximately 16 years’ experience in healthcare, working for both the public and private sectors in England and Ireland; in addition to qualifications in health and social care along with other healthcare related courses through the years. The Complainant alleged this made a mockery of all of her hard work and dedication to the profession, when fellow interns had no prior experience in healthcare.

The Complainant appealed the decision internally but was not successful in her appeal.

The Complainant's claim of discrimination necessitates the discharge of the burden of proof that there is a prima facie case to answer by the respondent as prescribed by section 85A of the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015. The following submission was made strictly on a without prejudice basis to the Complainant's obligation to discharge this burden of proof. 

The hospital is also a placement site for student nurses to undertake their Nursing studies and has an outstanding agreement with a College where a number of general staff nurse positions are allocated for newly qualified graduates. 

The Respondent utterly refuted any allegation of discrimination on the grounds of family status and disability. The Respondent is an equal opportunities employer and is committed to equality of opportunity in  all its employment practices. policies and procedures. The recruitment policy relevantly provides for equal opportunity. The Complainant was allocated placement as a Student Nurse Intern for her final year of Nursing studies on the 6 January 2020. 

As a student she also had a contract of employment as an intern which contains a grievance procedure. At no stage during the student placement or job application process was the Respondent placed on notice of any disability. The normal practice is the College is to notify the Course Practice Coordinator of any requirements for reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities and a clear learning plan is drawn up however no such requirement was notified to the Respondent in this case. 

The Complainant applied for a role as a Staff Nurse with the Respondent, however. was unsuccessful.

TheRespondent is a teaching hospital which provides placements for student nurses in line with an agreement with a local College and the local HSE. As part of this agreement,1st to 3rd  year student nurses will complete rotations through the Hospital and 4th year student nurses have a 9 month placement.

As part of these arrangements the Respondent has an ongoing agreement with the College where 5 posts are available within the Hospital each year for newly qualified nurses. These posts arc open to all student nurses and not restricted to nursing interns within the individual hospital. 

The available posts were advertised as full-time permanent positions with the hospital.

On the 17 June 2020, the Complainant applied for a role with the Respondent Hospital as a Staff Nurse. There were 5 open positions available, and 8 applications were received for these positions.

The Complainant was invited to attend an interview on the 6 August 2020. The panel of this interview was  the HR Manager and a  CNM2/Nursing Office. The interview was a competency-based interview which was based on the following twelve competencies:

                                     Experience

                                     Education

Organisational Awareness/Mission

Patient Centred

Medication Management

Scope of practice Role

Continuous Professional Development

Legislation Ethics Regulation

Skilful Interpersonal Communication

Professionalism

Teamwork

Flexibility/Adaptability 

All internal applicants were offered the option of an in-person interview or a telephone interview. The Complainant was offered the option of an in-person interview and elected to have a telephone interview. 

Interview packs were prepared by IIR and brought to the Hospital Boardroom by a member of HR on 6 August 2020, the day of the interview. At no point were the questions for the interview given to any panel member prior to the interview. 

On the 6 August 2020, the Complainant was telephoned for the interview, as chosen by the Complainant. The Complainant was asked if she could hear the panel clearly which she confirmed she could. The Complainant proceeded to answer all questions asked by the interview   panel and at no stage did the Complainant ask for a question to be repeated or indicate that she was having difficulties hearing any questions. Furthermore, at no stage during the interview did she advise the interviewers that she was feeling unwell or request that the interview be rescheduled. 

At the commencement of the interview, the Complainant was provided with an outline of the open position which indicated that the position available was a staff nurse post, with full-time 39 hours per week. and would include day/night rotation and weekends. The Complainant acknowledged this and did raise any issue at the commencement of the interview. 

The Complainant scored an average of 3.33 in the interview on the 6 August 2020 and to qualify, candidates must have scored on average 3.5 (overall rating). As per the selection criteria, the Complainant did not meet the selection criteria and ranked 8 out of the 8 candidates and therefore was not selected for the role. 

On the 7 August 2020, the Complainant rang in sick to the Nursing Office of the Respondent. 

On the 7 August 2020 at 18.36 pm. the Complainant sent a text to a member of hospital staff enquiring about the outcome of the interview. She was advised that as she was out sick at that time, the HR Manager replied she would meet with her when she was fit to resume duty to advise her of the outcome of the interview. 

On the 13 August 2020, the Complainant returned to work and was informed the interview outcome was that she was unsuccessful. The Respondent offered to meet with the Complainant to give feedback from the interview. 

On the 14 August 2020, the Respondent received an email from the Complainant requesting a reconsideration of the recruitment process and alleged that other candidates were given assistance regarding the interview process. No details of these allegations or supporting infom1ation was furnished. 

On the l 7 August 2020, the HR Manager met with the Complainant to provide feedback on the interview and discuss the allegations made by the Complainant of unfair competition with the interview process. At this meeting, the Complainant stated that on the day of the interview she was unwell however this was never disclosed to the Respondent on the day of the interview. The HR Manager provided the Complainant via email with a copy of the grievance procedure and advised that the hospital would investigate any grievance the Complainant made if she wished to proceed with her alleged Complainant. The HR Manager also advised the Complainant that she would discuss her complaint with the Nursing Office. 

On the 19 August 2020, an email from the Complainant was received by the HR Manager informing the Respondent that the Complainant will be lodging a complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission.

On the 20 August 2020, an email from the Complainant was received by the HR Manager requesting an outcome of interview review. 

On the 21 August 2020, the HR Manager emailed and wrote a letter to the Complainant outlined that the outcome of the interview was final and encouraged her to apply for future general nursing posts available with the Respondent. 

On the 21 August 2020, the complainant submitted a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commissions. 

The Centre Placement Co-Ordinator who was an employee of the Respondent but is now working in partnership with the College where the Complainant was a student, invited all internal candidates to participate in an internal information session on key areas within the hospital. The Complainant did not attend the information session on the key area of JCI and other internal candidates did attend these sessions. The CPO recalls issuing an invitation to the Complainant to this session and being informed by the Complainant that she was not attending because she was attending a concert. This CPO recalls this being a strange explanation as the interview was taking place during lockdown when little or no events were occurring. Only two of the placement students did not attend this preparation session, one of whom was the Complainant. 

Information about the JCI  was available on all wards in the Respondents organisation as during the time, the Respondent was going through the JCI accreditation. Other internal candidates did attend these information sessions and prepared for a competency-based interview. All candidates were questioned under the various headings and the Complainants scores were provided to the Hearing and a summary of the evaluation of the Complainants assessment under various headings. The Complainant scored 3.3 and the minimum score required was 3.5. Candidates assessed below this score would not be appointed in any circumstances. 

Following the selection process and once the Complainant was informed that she was not selected for the role, she immediately challenged the process, seeking further information about the reasons why she was not successful. However, she was non-co-operative and refused to provide any details of her allegations such as to enable the Respondent to investigate her grievances. She insisted on maintaining her firm personal belief that she had been discriminated against and refused to provide the information that she maintained supported her allegation of discrimination, even after furnishing her submission to the WRC. It was only when the Respondent's representative pointed out to the WRC that the Respondent would be disadvantaged at hearing unless the Complainant placed the Respondent on notice of the information, she was using to support her allegations that copies of the Whatsapp messages were provided some four weeks prior to hearing date. 

At all times, the Respondents attempted to deal fairly and transparently with the Complainants issues, but their explanations were not accepted by the Complainant. 

The Complainant in this case is alleging that she was discriminated against on the grounds of family status and disability in breach of the terms of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998  2015, when the Respondent made the decision to not appoint her to the role of Staff Nurse.

The allegation is rejected on each of the following grounds: 

The Complainant has not demonstrated that she has a disability or family status such as to enable her to claim protection under the Acts. Nor has she demonstrated or established that the Respondent was aware of either of such a status. 

The Complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case.

The Complainant alleged three forms of discrimination against her. She alleged that she was discriminated because of her family status, that she had an anxiety and hearing disability and that was not taken account of at her interview and she was not given reasonable accommodation for her disabilities. 

The Complainant in pre-hearing submissions made an amount of allegations against the Respondent. Some of these allegations were related to situations the Complainant observed or feelings the Complainant felt. While useful to the background to the complaint it is my role to distinguish the evidence supplied to the Hearing from the Complainants own personal view of her treatment. 

The requirements on Parties to support their allegations with evidence has significantly increased since the decision the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021. Equally written submissions prior to a Hearing must be supported by evidence on oath or affirmation at a Hearing and this evidence under oath or affirmation is crucial to any decision on a complaint. 

The Complainant stated at the initial Hearing that she did not have to disclose any disability and that she had informed the Co-Ordinator that she had an anxiety issue. No evidence was given that the Complainant advised the Respondent of a disability and in post hearing correspondence the Complainant submitted details from her GP of an anxiety issue on July 11 2018 but there was no evidence this was a continuing issue or that the Respondent had been notified of same. The Complainants start date was January 6th 2020 so the medical consultation took place prior to her start date.  The Complainant stated the job posting was not made available to all candidates. The Complainant stated she was much more experienced than all other candidates. The Complainant stated the interview scores were unjust and unfairly calculated. The Complainant stated the criteria were given to other candidates in advance and one person was taken into an office to discuss same. The Complainant stated there were text messages to show some candidates were given what areas would be covered at interview. The Complainant stated she could not hear well at the interview but did not raise this at the interview. The Complainant agreed she was asked to put her appeal in writing but contacted the Irish Human Rights office. The Complainant sought proof from the Co-Ordinator she allegedly went to during lockdown. The Complainant advised she had received funding for a PHd and that no other Intern had that funding. The Complainant submitted post hearing a document verify she had funding to do a Phd Research but there was no evidence this was provided to the interviewers and the Complainant admitted in post hearing correspondence that this was the case sighting that she was not given the chance to bring it up. The Complainant stated she did not need notice of shifts as suggested by the Respondent. The Complainant alleged two breaches of GDPR by IBEC giving information to the WRC without her consent.  The Complainant alleged she was “spoke over” and “cut off” at the interview. The Complainant confirmed to the Adjudicator that she did not ask for more time at the interview. The Complainant alleged that the process of discrimination happened before and at the interview. The Complainant advised the Hearing she thought she told the Interviewers that she could not hear them properly but stated she expected the Interviewers to say differently. The Complainant could not recall telling the Interviewers that she suffered from anxiety at the interview. Under cross examination the Complainant was asked did she know the difference between an individual assertion and the truth. She replied yes. It was put to the Complainant that she had not informed either Interviewer that she had an anxiety or hearing issue at the interview and she stated she had told them before and that on the day of the interview she believed she told them she was anxious. It was put to the Complainant that she did not seek to have the interview postponed or extended due to a disability. It was put to the Complainant that she never informed the Interviewers that she could not hear them and the Complainant believed she did but had difficulty remembering as was over two years ago and would rely on her text messages. It was put to the Complainant that the references issue had no bearing on the interview scoring. It was put to the Complainant that the issue relating to two references was for outside candidates. It was put to the Complainant that the reason she did not get the job was due to her score at interview and that she did not raise any issues about the scoring until two years later. The Complainant generally did not reply to these questions. It was put to the Complainant that she admitted in her submission to going through a Managers folder.  The Complainant stated the file was on an individuals work desk in the Clinical store room and that it was not a crime to be nosy. The Complainant agreed that it was inappropriate to go through a file that was not related to her. With regard to the question on hospital strategy the Complainant agreed it was only one of the questions at the interview and the document was available to the candidates but she only found this out by discussion with another candidate and she did not read the document in advance of the interview. She advised she tried to find it on the internet but could not. The Complainant was asked did she check the Hospital website as the strategy document was on the website. The Complainant advised she was not aware of it but thought it should be in the Hospital communications newsletter. The Complainant was questioned why external candidates could find it on the website and she did not. The Complainant was asked what evidence she had that the interview questions were given out in advance. The Complainant advised she heard to through discussions. The Complainants version of events was questioned as the as the Respondent stated they were only decided on the morning of the interview. The Complainants assertion that the whats app message said who the Respondent were taking in in advance of the hearing was questioned and put to her that did not say that. The Complainant stated that one Intern knew who they were taking on. The Complainant agreed this was hearsay.  The Complainant agreed she did not bring this to the attention of the Interviewers as she felt they could have been disqualified. The Complainant alleged one Interviewer was a neighbour of a candidate and was questioned as to what evidence she had of this.  She advised she had no evidence to offer of this. The Complainant agreed she did not raise an internal grievance on the process. When questioned about any phone interference in the interview the Complainant agreed she could hear the Interviewers. 

A witness for the Complainant (Ms X)  who stated she was also unsuccessful at the interview

felt the Complainant was treated differently and that it stood out. She stated if they had been given the same assistance, they would have got the jobs.  She stated she saw other Managers approach other Interns to give them advice about the interviews.  Under cross examination she agreed this could be a coincidence. She agreed an Intern had to excel to get a full-time job. It was put to the Witness that she did not confirm the Complainant had any disability, that interview questions were provided to some candidates in advance or that the most suitable candidates were not hired. The Witness submitted in a statement that other staff told her they knew of the questions and that one intern was a neighbour of an Interviewee and this could be proved by that person. That person did not give evidence to the Hearing. Being a neighbour of someone, if that were the case and it was denied by the Interviewer, is not a cause for discrimination. The Witness also stated in her statement that some people had hints about the questions and that they may be the same every year. This may generally be true as the competencies required for the job probably stay the same most years but this does not amount to prior knowledge of the questions to be asked and any well prepared Interviewee will have prepared for questions on these competencies and enquired from past candidates about the interview format and style. This is again not cause for a discriminatory action by the Respondent. Nothing in the Intern what’s app messages submitted confirmed any person had sight of the questions in advance. And indeed any tips were shared by candidates on their own whats app group with other candidates including the Complainant, although this was not verified in the whats app exchanges provided that she was involved in the communications directly.  

Ms Y, the Intern Co-ordinator gave evidence of her role and that her primary role was to support and guide Interns in their placement. She advised she was in the role since 2017 and had now joined the College. She advised she met the Interns frequently on a daily basis in the their clinical areas. The Co-ordinator advised that due to the lockdown it was an intensive period and the Complainant consented to be interviewed by phone. She stated she organised an intensive package for the interviews and sent it by email all the Interns.  She advised there were ZOOM meeting in April to help candidates prepare for interview. She advised attendance was not mandatory. She advised she assisted with CV preparation. She advised the Complainant did not attend these and recollects something about her being at a concert. She stated she had no prior knowledge of the interview questions. She recalled chatting to the Complainant about medication management. She advised that Interns would ask her questions by phone. She advised she agreed with the assessment of the Hospital on the candidates.    

The Respondent HR Manager stated in evidence that she recalled a yellow weather warning and as this was a force majeure issue had to make an assessment of the Complainants travel situation. She was unaware of the Complainants hearing issue. She agreed she was informed generally of the Complainants anxiety and that there was a Support Officer available if needed to any member of staff. She advised she was never provided by the Complainant with a medical certificate for a disability.

The CNM advised in evidence that she was a late replacement in the Interviews due to another person not being available. She advised they asked general competency questions and that the interview pack was brought by Ms A to the interview room that day and she had no prior sight of it. She advised the Complainant did not mention any disability or that she was feeling unwell. She advised she never asked about family status and the Complainant volunteered she had a child and her preference was for nights. She advised the Complainants answers were short and not developed. She advised that the Complainant did not advise she had received PhD funding. She formed the view the Complainant was not available for days. She advised that the allegation she was a neighbour of one of the Candidates Ms B, was untrue as she lived 15 miles away from her outside of town. With regard to the allegation she visited an Intern at her house she denied this and advised she had family in the location of the Hospital and would visit occasionally. She advised she did not see the interview questions until 9am the morning of the interviews. 

I have taken account of the submissions and especially the evidence at the Hearings and my Findings are as follows;

The Complainant did not provide any medical evidence both during her employment with the Respondent or at the Hearing that she suffered from a disability. She did not inform the Interviewers that she either suffered from anxiety or as alleged poor Hearing during the interviews.

The Complainant offered no factual evidence that she was discriminated against because of her family status. Most of the Complainants assertions were either hearsay or opinions and was not substantiated by any evidence. The Complainant offered no evidence of the other successful applications family status as comparators. The evidence of the Interviewer, the HR Manager, was logical and convincing in that the Complainant offered information regarding her family status and that her preference was to work nights. Regarding the Complainants case that she was not provided with a reasonable accommodation for her hearing/anxiety issue, which there was no medical evidence of, it was the Complainant who choose to do the interview by telephone and at no stage informed the Interviewers that she had any issue hearing them. Regarding the issue of the other candidates being treated more favourably, all candidates were offered to opportunity to attend a meeting to discuss the Hospitals general strategy, which formed a small part pf the interview, and the Complainant did not attend this meeting by choice. The strategy was also available on the Hospital web site. Regarding the Complainants assertions that other Candidates were given the questions in advance this was not substantiated by any evidence and the claim was adequately dealt with by the HR Manager and CNM Manager and their evidence was more convincing.

Regarding the claim that the CNM was a neighbour to a candidate and visited her, the oral evidence to the contrary of the Witness was more convincing in that she was not related to a candidate and lived 15 miles away from the housing estate mentioned. Regarding the scores at interview, it is a long established principle that 3rd parties should not place themselves in the place of Interviewers who had the benefit of much more information and the actual interview itself and the Adjudicator has no role in evaluating the interview scores of candidates. Regarding the specific assertion that the Complainant underscored in experience the Witness for the Respondent stated that the Complainants prior experience was not nursing but as a health care assistant and all applicants had the same nursing experience. Regarding the specific allegation that the Complainant underscored on education the Complainant advised she had been accepted for a PHD course however she had not either started or completed the course at the time of interview nor informed the Interviewers.  I accept that the Complainant may have had a genuine perception that she was being discriminated against for a variety of reasons but this is very different to proving it. The lack of any factual evidence was determinantal to the Complainants case.

I find that the Complainant has not established a primia facie case of discrimination any grounds.

I Find that the Complainant was not discriminated against.

Discrimination