Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Philip Matthew O'Malley

CPL Solutions Ltd

Representatives

Self-represented 

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-00046472-001

30/09/2021

The complainant asserts discrimination on grounds of age in two interview processes with the respondent, who denies the claim.

In evidence under affirmation, the complainant outlined that this was a complaint of age and gender discrimination. In 2021, he was interviewed for two remote working roles by the respondent, to be assigned to a named bank. He prepared for both interviews and was ‘gutted’ not to be successful at either interview. He had been working in a call centre role for the HSE as part of the pandemic response. He had previously done administrative roles and book keeping at a law firm.

The complainant outlined that he was disappointed on reading the interview notes, as he thought that his answers were better and better-received than recorded. He said that he was baffled by the interview outcome and that the respondent should have a better matrix and scoring system. He denied demonstrating at interview the negative attributes cited in the notes.

The respondent submitted that the complainant had not made out a prima facie case of discrimination on either the age or gender ground.

Georgina Kirwan gave evidence under affirmation. She conducted the second interview with the complainant. The complainant had not submitted an up-to-date CV and it was difficult to get answers from him. He was dismissive in one answer. She outlined that the complainant was certainly capable of the technical side of the role and the issue here was with ‘fit’. She said that she was fair to all candidates, and they recruited employees for the bank from a diverse age range.

This is a complaint of discrimination on grounds of age and gender in access to employment. The respondent carried out a series of online interviews for remote positions at the bank. The complainant attended two online interviews for different roles at this bank. They took place on the 3rd and 21st September 2021. The witness for the respondent was part of the panel for the second interview.

Per section 85A, the complainant must point to facts of such significance that raise the inference of discrimination. Whether a factual matrix raises an inference of discrimination depends on whether the relevant facts are within the exclusive or near-exclusive knowledge of the respondent; where they are, an inference is quickly raised.

In this case, it is obvious that the complainant prepared for the interviews and was knowledgeable about the bank and the roles. I appreciate why the complainant was unhappy with the outcome of the interviews. Even if I do not agree with every conclusion drawn in the interview notes, it is fair to say that the interview notes are comprehensive and record the answer the complainant gave. There are certain instances, in particular in the first interview, where the complainant gave answers that were deemed not to be fully-fledged when they could have been teased out in greater detail (e.g. his examples in the first interview of effective communication and problem-solving). In my view, these examples were under-scored.

Ms Kirwan gave impressive evidence regarding the scoring of the second interview. The interview notes are thorough and engage with the complainant’s answers to questions. They comment on the complainant’s tone, which in turn impacted on the complainant’s ‘fit’.

Nothing in this case suggests an inference of discrimination could be drawn on grounds of age or gender. While I think the complainant may have been under-scored at the first interview, there is nothing to indicate that this was on grounds of either age or gender. The respondent’s impressive evidence regarding the second interview makes it clear that there was no discrimination in respect of this interview. It follows that the complainant was not discriminated against by the respondent in respect of the interview processes conducted in September 2021.

CA-00046472-001

I conclude this investigation and decide that the respondent did not discriminate against the complainant on grounds of age or gender.

Employment Equality Act / age or gender discrimination / interview