Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Colleen  Doyle

Institute For Study Abroad

Representatives

  Self-represented

Laura Reidy The HR Suite

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-00049489-001

03/04/2022

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant gave her evidence under oath while the witness who gave evidence for the respondent undertook to give her evidence under affirmation.  The witnesses were cross examined by the opposing party.

The complainant submitted that that during an interview for a position with the respondent she was asked two specific questions regarding her family status – “Do you have children?” and “what ages are they?”

She submitted that she found it highly distressful and that this amounted to discrimination on the family status grounds.

Complainant testimony:

The complainant stated that during an online interview for a position with the respondent she was asked two specific questions – “Do you have children?” and “What ages are they?”  She stated that she found this line of questioning very off-putting and did not present herself in the best manner thereafter.

Under cross examination the complainant was asked at what stage during the interview did this occur and replied that it was after the half-way point.  In response to questioning the complainant noted that she could not remember the context in which the questions were asked and couldn’t remember what was asked of her either just before or just after those questions were asked. She couldn’t remember the discussion topic surrounding the asking of the questions and confirmed that she was thrown off.  The complainant also confirmed that she didn’t remember any discussion of her doctoral thesis.

The respondent denied that the complainant was asked the specific questions she complained of.  The respondent agreed as to the content of the discussion but submitted that the complainant volunteered the information regarding her parental status during a discussion around her PhD topic: "Parental perceptions of students’ experience of the first year of an undergraduate engineering degree". The respondent submitted that given that the discussion was specifically in relation to parenting and student experience, it was at this point that the interviewer shared her own parental status to make a connection between parenting and working with students.

Witness testimony:

The witness conducted the second stage interview with the complainant and noted that she has been involved in various recruitment drives, interviewing multiple candidates across the globe.  The witness denied that she asked the specific questions and noted that the complainant disclosed her family status as part of the discussion around her doctoral thesis.  The witness recalled asking the complainant about the names of her children but did not remember asking the two specific questions as to whether the complainant had children nor as to their ages.

Under cross examination, the witness confirmed that she did not ask the questions complained of by the complainant as they were not interview questions.  She also confirmed that other candidates were not asked the specific questions as there were not interview questions.

Under re-direct, the witness outlined that the information came to light during a discussion of the complainant’s thesis which revolved around parental involvement and parenting style.  The witness confirmed that she had a recollection of asking the children’s names but not ages and that any reference was fleeting.

The complainant seems to have very little recall of the interview that she underwent and was only able to provide scant detail regarding the discussion during the interview.  The complainant outlined that she was asked two very specific questions regarding her family status but could not indicate what questions she had been asked before or afterwards.  She could not recall the context of the questions being asked and could not recall any discussion about her PhD thesis, which appears to be directly related to the job on offer.  

The witness for the respondent in comparison was able to recall detail of the discussion of the complainant’s thesis which, according to her, led to the complainant volunteering information regarding her family status.  She was also able to attest categorically that the questions did not form part of her interview question for the complainant or for other interview candidates. 

I do not find it credible that the complainant’s doctoral thesis was not discussed in an interview where it would have been directly relevant for the position on offer.  On balance, I prefer the respondent witness’ version of events.

Section 85A of the Employment Equality Act outlines the burden of proof that rests on a complainant.  Section 85A (1) states that “Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.”

Having regard to the foregoing, I am satisfied that that the complainant has not established facts from which discrimination may be inferred.  On that basis, I find that the complaint is not well founded.

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this matter, my decision is that the complaint is not well founded.

Employment Equality – witness testimony not credible – complaint not well founded.