Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Emma  Hughes

Brazilian Coffee House Limited

Representatives

  Self

 No Appearance

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-00057255-001

20/06/2023

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a Brand and Digital Marketing Executive from the 4th of April 2022   until her resignation on the 28th of June 2023.

The Complaint alleged discrimination on grounds of pregnancy/maternity pursuant to the the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2021 (“the Acts”).

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on the 4th of April 2022 as a Brand Manager or  Brand  and Digital Marketing Executive, a role which involved marketing the Respondent’s business on social media and organising and running events involving the Respondent. She was paid the gross amount of €35,000 per annum. She was hired by Mr. Martin McCaffrey, the C.E.O of the Respondent to whom she reported directly throughout her employment.  She did not sign a written contract of employment, and she was unable to access or produce any contractual documentation.

The Complainant announced her pregnancy to Mr. McCaffrey on the 2nd of August 2022. From that point onwards until the end of her employment she alleged that she was treated in a discriminatory manner by Mr. McCaffrey who made unreasonable demands on her including requesting her to continue working during her protected leave. She also alleged that the C.E.O unfairly criticised her work and undermined her confidence. He excluded her from meetings and withheld information from her. He shouted at her and on other occasions, ignored her.

The Complainant started her maternity leave in November 2022 and was due to return on the 14th of May 2023. Her baby was born on the 28th of November 2022. During her maternity leave and before her expected return date the Complainant submitted written complaints to the Respondent 29th of March and the 12th of April 2023. She expected these complaints to be investigated but this did not occur. The Complainant initiated the present claim by way of WRC Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 20th of June 2023. She resigned shortly thereafter on the 26th of June 2023. Her letter of resignation stated that she was resigning as the Respondent’s failure to address her concerns left her with no choice. The Respondent replied purportedly accepting the Complainant’s “voluntary” resignation.

The Complainant also identified a male employee who was hired to cover her maternity leave, who she understood received a higher salary and more beneficial terms of employment than she had prior to her maternity leave even though this person was doing the same work as she did and was in fact covering her maternity leave.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing on the 2nd of August 2024. The Respondent did not deliver written submissions in response to any of the allegations made by the Complainant in her written submissions made prior to that hearing.

Evidence

The Complainant gave evidence on affirmation by reference to the submissions which she had made prior to the hearing and by further reference to payslips submitted at the hearing.

The Complainant announced her pregnancy to Mr. McCaffrey on the 2nd of August 2022 and she said that she would be taking her maternity leave from the 13th of November 2022 until the 14th of May 2023, 26 weeks later. She alleged that McCaffrey’s attitude towards her and his treatment of her changed for the worse from then on.

In September 2022 the Complainant had booked annual leave and had so advised Mr. McCaffrey. The leave was booked from the 13th to the 21st of September 2022. An event which the Complainant was working on was set to take place on the 24th of September. However, Mr McCaffrey decided the 18th of September would be a better day for the event. The Complainant reminded Mr McCaffrey that she would be taking annual leave from the 13th to the 21st of September 2022, so she would not be able to work on the event. He said that this was fine and that he would ask someone else to cover the event. In the weeks leading up to her annual leave, Mr McCaffrey began to claim that the Complainant had never asked him if she could take her annual leave the same week as the event and that it was extremely important for her to be there. The Complainant had been orchestrating a two-month marketing campaign and working alongside his Mr. McCaffrey’s PA to plan the event, but Mr McCaffrey said he would have to do everything himself and that the Complainant was not committed to the job by taking her annual leave.

Upon returning from leave after the event the Complainant noted that all the goals which had been set for the event were met and she was of the view that the event had gone very well.  She was eager to move on to the next campaign, so she began working on it on her own accord. Mr. McCaffrey invited her down to a meeting in the basement or bottom floor of a pub on Monday 26th of September 2022.  He was very angry with the Complainant and said that the event was a disaster.  Although the Complainant  pointed out that everything on her end had been sorted before she had left, that she was on  hand to coach another employee through the day and that she had rectified the issues which had arisen while at the same time being on annual leave,  Mr McCaffrey said that the Complainant  was  not committed to the role and it was a disgrace that she had been away. When the Complainant began to get upset Mr. McCaffrey said that he never gets a holiday, and he had to do everything himself. The Complainant explained to Mr McCaffrey that it was very hard for her to carry out her role when he and the Operations Manager frequently ignored her and didn’t reply to her messages.  Mr McCaffrey said that he didn’t see the Complainant’s messages. Mr McCaffrey then scrapped the next campaign that they had planned even though he knew from the Complainant’s messages that she had been spending her time working on it. The Complainant was told to come up with something else.

From the outset, a huge part of the Complainant’s role was creating exciting and diverse content for   Instagram and gaining new followers. Up until she informed Mr McCaffrey that she would be taking maternity leave he had been very happy with how she had been performing in this aspect as she had gained over 1200 new followers. Although nothing had changed with how she was performing, Mr.  McCaffrey began frequently giving out about the content on the Company page, saying that he could not see the posts. Almost every Monday Mr McCaffrey give out to the Complainant because he said that he hadn’t seen any company content at the weekend. The Complainant attempted to rectify this by turning on the necessary notifications on Mr McCaffrey’s phone and showing him how to find the company’s page on Instagram even though Mr McCaffrey was fully aware of how to use Instagram. The Complainant also ran through the content for the week with him most days, so he was fully in the loop with everything she was doing. Mr McCaffrey continued to give out to her most days that he could not see the content and that this wasn’t good enough. When the Complainant showed Mr. McCaffrey Instagram reels from the company page that she had directly sent to him through messages, he said he didn’t have time to watch them. The Complainant felt that Mr McCaffrey was blatantly trying to ignore the work that she was doing. And that his actions were deliberate and intentional and with prejudice on basis that she was taking protective maternity leave

On two occasions, Mr McCaffrey failed to alert the Complainant when the Company’s locations in Dublin 24 and Dublin 2 had closed. When the Operations Manager informed her that the Dublin 24 location had closed over a week ago, he told her not to tell Mr McCaffrey that she knew - as he might not want to tell her even though it was her job to update information across the platforms. The Complainant felt that the actions of Mr McCaffrey were a deliberate attempt to make her role more difficult.

Mr McCaffrey began leaving the Complainant out of meetings with the designer with whom who he discussed the Respondent’s projects.

On two occasions, when discussing company business with a female colleague in a very small shared office, Mr McCaffrey yelled “I am not talking to you” when the Complainant tried to help with the matter they were having trouble with. 

The Complainant alleged that her maternity leave contract “Brand and Digital Marketing Executive”, originally advertised as a temp role, was and is currently being carried out by a named male employee. This man commenced employment with the Respondent on the 18th of November 2022, seven days after the Complainant finished work to go on maternity leave.  It was her understanding that his starting salary was the same as hers, €35,000 per annum.

On the 9th of February 2023, a colleague of the Complainant informed her that the contract of the man who was hired to cover her maternity leave had been amended and he was now being offered 50K per annum to carry out my maternity contract. At this stage had he had been in the position for less than 3 months and had already been offered the equivalent of an annual increase of €15,000 per annum. The Complainant also contended that this male employee enjoyed unrestricted work-form-home facilities whereas she had to have specific permission based on a legitimate reason to work from home.

Mr McCaffrey had over three months from the announcement of the Complainant’s pregnancy, to prepare for the Complainant’s absence and to find a suitable replacement. However late in the afternoon of Monday the 7th of November 2022, four days before the Complainant was due to commence her maternity leave, Mr. McCaffrey called the Complainant into a meeting which took place downstairs in the back off a pub.  All the lights were turned off, so the meeting took place in the dark. Mr. McCaffrey told the Complainant that her imminent maternity leave had “really crept up on him” and he was annoyed that there was no plan in place. He said he had assumed that the Complainant would still work an hour or two a day during her maternity leave to “help out” at DASH. The Complainant felt under pressure on being asked to work in this way during her maternity leave. Even though it was not her responsibility to find a replacement to cover her maternity leave, she realised that Mr. McCaffrey had forgotten to find a replacement for her. The Complainant offered to set up some work for the following week and to advertise her job title as a solution.  Mr. McCaffrey said that she should have done that weeks ago if the Complainant planned on not working, but he agreed to the Complainant advertising her position as a temporary role. The Complainant was astounded at the request that she continue to work during her maternity leave.

The Complainant commenced maternity leave on the 14th of November 2022 and was due to return on the 14th of May 2023. Prior to her return the Complainant made written complaints to the Respondent on the 29th of March and the 12th of April 2023. The Complainant expected that these complaints would be investigated before her expected return to her position following her maternity leave. This was not done by her expected date of return in May 2023 so she elected to extend her maternity leave for a further period of seven weeks which would have ended on the 3rd of July 2023. The Complainant was anxious and worried about the complaint and the fact that no steps were taken to investigate it as she had expected.

The Complainant initiated the claim by way of WRC Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 20th of June 2023. A very detailed submission was contained in that Complaint Form and the Complainant expected a response to it, but she heard nothing. Having given the Respondent sufficient opportunity to investigate her complaint including initiating a claim to the WRC on the 20th of June 2023, the Complainant submitted a letter of resignation dated the 26th of June 2023 stating:

“I am writing to formally notify you of my resignation from my Brand and Marketing Manager role. I feel I have been left with no alternative as I have not heard any correspondence about the issues I have raised. You have failed to address concerns which have ultimately given me no alternative at this time. I can not take any additional unpaid leave whilst I await to hear from you, as I need to support my new family.”

A letter dated the 30th of June 2023 was received by the Complainant. The letter was headed: ”Dash-dashcontainercafe.com.” It was addressed to the Complainant “C.C. HR Department” and was signed by “Martin McCaffrey Proprietor”. The Complainant said that she was unaware of the existence of any HR Department in the Respondent’s undertaking. The letter sated as follows:

“In noting the change in your address details we wish to acknowledge receipt of your voluntary resignation from your employment position with the Company. In this regard in accepting your resignation arrangements will be made to notify Revenue of your cessation date.

In conclusion we would like to take this opportunity of wishing your every success and happiness in the future”.

It was the Complainant’s submission that Mr McCaffrey acted completely unreasonably in response to her announcement of her pregnancy in August 2022. Thereafter from then until November 2022, she said that she was subjected to unreasonable demands to continue working during her protected leave as well as to hostility, unreasonable criticism which undermined her confidence, stress and worry, all of which, she alleged, arose from her intention to take maternity leave.

Findings

Amendment of Title of Respondent

The Complainant instituted the claim by way of WRC Complaint Form on the 20th of June 2023. In that Complaint Form the Respondent was identified as follows:

Brazillian Coffee House,

Dash- Container Café

Hole In The Wall 

Blackhorse Avenue

Castleknock

Dublin 7 D07 V663

The Chief Executive Officer of that entity was identified as  Mr. Martin McCaffrey

The spelling of the word, “Brazillian” contained two letter ’l’s instead of one.

A hearing notice dated the 3rd of  October 2023 was sent to:

Mr Martin McCaffrey

Brazillian Coffee House, Dash- Container Cafe

Hole In The Wall

Blackhorse Avenue

Castleknock

Dublin 7

D07 V663

The hearing was set for the 10th of November 2023. On that date the Complainant appeared representing herself. While there was no appearance by the Respondent, Mr.  Don Gary appeared and addressed me saying that he had just been contacted by Mr. Martin McCaffrey. Mr. Gary was said that it was his understanding that Mr. McCaffrey was unable to engage with the case or appear at the online hearing on that day for personal reasons. Mr. Gary said that he was expecting shortly to be but was not at that time formally instructed to represent the Respondent. The matter was adjourned. Immediately following that adjournment, by letter dated the 14th of November 2023, I directed the Respondent to provide submissions by the 8th of December 2023 to which the Complainant could reply by the 12th of January 2024. The Respondent made no submissions nor did the Respondent engage in any way with the merits of the case. The case was then relisted for the 15 March 2024.  Before this hearing, Mr. Gary sent an email to the WRC dated the 13th of March 2024 consenting to email communications. Later that same day, Mr. Gary emailed the WRC stating as follows:

“As requested I am pleased to confirm the following. I am authorised to come on record in relation to the above mentioned adjudication file and compliant reference numbers. In this regard I apologise I will not be available to attend the proposed hearing in relation to this matter as I will be in the UK on the day in question. Confirmation of travel arrangements [were provided].  In conclusion I trust the WRC will adjourn the matter to be convened at a later date.

Kind Regards Don Garry

doncomply@gmail.com

On the basis of this email the WRC granted a postponement of the hearing scheduled for the 15 March 2024.

The case was then relisted for the 02 August 2024. The Complainant emailed a further submission and documentation on the 23rd of August 2024 which was copied that same day to the Respondent’s representative.  The hearing notice for the hearing on the 2nd of August 2024 was sent by the WRC to the Respondent’s representative and to the Respondent on the 30th of May 2024. The address to which the hearing notice was set was:

Mr Martin McCaffrey

Brazillian Coffee House,

Dash- Container Café

Hole In The Wall 

Blackhorse Avenue

Castleknock

Dublin 7 D07 V663

At the hearing on the 3rd of August 2024, there was no appearance nor any other communication by or on behalf of the Respondent. Being satisfied that the Respondent and the Respondent’s representative had been notified of the time date and venue for the adjudication hearing I proceeded in the absence of the Respondent, and I heard the Complainant’s evidence given under affirmation and considered her submissions.

Following that hearing, on the 4th of September 2024 I issued directions seeking information regarding the terms and conditions of and salary paid to the male employee named by the Complainant in her evidence. The directions were issued to:

Brazillian Coffee House

Trading As Dash-Container Café,

Hole in the Wall

Blackhorse Avenue,

Phoenix Park,

Dublin 7

No response from the Respondent was received. However an email was received from the Respondent’s representative, Mr. Don Gary on the 11th of September 2024 stating:

“Apologies for the delay in reverting in back as I was on annual leave.  As advised I cannot come on record as the above mentioned application relates to a non incorrect legal entity.

Kind Regards

Don Garry”

On reviewing the file and correspondence as detailed above in the light of the email from Mr. Gary dated the 11th of September 2024, the spelling error in relation to the word “Brazilian” was identified in that it had been spelt with two ‘l’s. It is noted that at no stage was any such spelling error pointed out by or on behalf of the entity to which the previous correspondence had been sent. All correspondence had been sent to the same address. The Complainant in the course of giving her evidence on the 3rd of August 2024 provided copies of payslips which she received during her employment with the payor identified thereon as ‘Brazilian Coffee House Limited’. She did not sign a contract of employment. The Complainant resigned by letter dated the 26th of June 2023. This letter was acknowledged by a letter dated the 30th of June 2024. The letterhead reads:

 “DASH-

Dashcontainercafe.com”

No other description of the sender of that letter is identified, whether it is a business name or a company. There is no registered office at the foot of the letter, but an address is specified as “Blackhorse Avenue, Phoenix Park, Dublin 7. The letter was signed by Martin McCaffrey.

I formed the opinion that the Complainant was employed by Brazilian Coffee House Limited. I further formed the opinion that the name of the entity which employed the Complainant was misspelt due to a clerical error but that nonetheless Brazilian Coffee House Limited was at all material times on notice of the claims and of the nature and extent of the claims. For those reasons I formally notified Brazilian Coffee House Limited on the 24th of October 2024 that I proposed amending the title of the Respondent:

The notification was addressed to

The Company Secretary

Brazilian Coffee House Limited

Hole In The Wall,

Blackhorse Avenue,

Dublin 7,

D07V663

The Notification issued by the WRC at my direction, included the following text;

“We refer to the above matter, to previous correspondence addressed to the Respondent, Brazillian Coffee House - Dash- Container Café and to various email communications made to the W.R.C.  on behalf of that entity by Mr. Don Gary.  

The Adjudication Officer assigned to this case, having considered all of the available evidence, proposes to amend the title of the Respondent to: Brazilian Coffee House Limited, having its registered offices at:  Hole In The Wall, Blackhorse Avenue, Dublin 7, D07V663. This amendment is proposed in the interests of fairness to reflect the correct identity of the employer of the Complainant. 

In the event that Brazilian Coffee House Limited has any objection to the proposed amendment please notify the W.R.C. in writing on or before the 4th of November  2024 setting out the grounds for any such objection. “

The notice was sent to the Company at its registered office and was also emailed to Mr. Gary On 04 November 2024 at 11:56am, the WRC received an email from Don Gary stating as follows:

“I refer to your correspondence dated the 13th of September 2024.  In this regard the respondent objects to the proposed amendment. 

Kind Regards

Don Garry”

The foregoing was the only response received to the notice dated the 24th of October 2024. The response does not specify on whose behalf it is written nor are any grounds provided for the purported objection to the proposed amendment.

Applicable Law

In County Louth VEC –V- Equality Tribunal [2009] IEHC 370 McGovern J. held:

“If it is permissible in court proceedings to amend pleadings where the justice of the case requires it, then, a fortiori, it should also be permissible to amend a claim as set out in a form such as an originating document before a statutory tribunal, so long as the general nature of the complaint remains the same.”  

In the cases of Eleanor O'Higgins v University College Dublin and The Labour Court [2013] IEHC 431, Hogan J. was requested by University College Dublin to strike out the action against that party as it had not been named in the notice of motion which initiated the proceedings.  On the last day before the time limit applicable to the action was due to expire, the papers were presented at the High Court Central Office which refused to accept them as the Labour Court had not been included as a party.  The notice of motion had named University College Dublin but not the Labour Court. Instead of adding the Labour Court, in addition to University College Dublin, the Labour Court was substituted for University College Dublin by way of a manuscript amendment to the papers. However, the proceedings were nonetheless served on both parties even though only one (i.e. The Labour Court) had been named on the notice of motion.  University College Dublin applied to have the action as against it struck out as it had not been named in the initiating notice of motion. Hogan J. refused to accede to this application.  One of the issues for consideration was

“Whether the striking out of the proceedings on this ground would compromise the appellant's constitutional right of access to the courts. “

On this issue Hogan J made the following findings:

“…the effective striking out of the proceedings simply by reason of what in truth would have amounted to harmless error would represent an entirely disproportionate interference with the appellant's constitutional right of access to the courts as guaranteed variously by Article34.1, Article 34.3.1 and Article 40.3.1 of the Constitution.”

(at paragraph 15)

Adopting a similar reasoning to that of Finlay Geoghegan J. in Re MJBCH Ltd. [2013] IEHC 256 Hogan J.  went on to state:

In my judgment, the same principles apply by analogy to the present case. The proceedings were commenced within time and all relevant parties were duly served in the manner required by O. 106, r. 4. The motion paper and affidavits outlined with clarity the case the appellant wishes to make. Even if the wrong party was, in fact, so named, no prejudice whatever was caused by reason of that error (if, indeed, error it be). The matter could easily have been rectified by the making of an appropriate order amending the title to the proceedings. As in Re MJBCH, there was no overriding policy objective which ordained that proceedings of this kind should be nullified by reason of such essentially harmless error.

In these circumstances, for this Court to hold that the appeal was rendered void by reason of such a technical error would amount to a grossly disproportionate response and deprive the appellant of the substance of her constitutional right of access to the courts

(paragraphs 17-18)

I note also that in a decision issued in November 2023, the foregoing decision in O’Higgins was applied by an Adjudicator in Tina Mary  Lukose v Riada Care Ltd T/A Glenashling Nursing Home ADJ-00043777 to amend the title of a Respondent to a claim made pursuant to the Employment Equality Acts 1998 (as amended). 

Applying the foregoing to the present case I note the following:

Two errors were made by the Complainant who (unlike the Applicant in the O’Higgins case) was not represented and did not seek any advice before instituting the proceedings.

The word “Brazilian”  – was spelt: “B r a z i l l i a n ” with two letter “l”s instead of one

The word Limited was not included after the Company’s name.

Given the limited information and documentation available to the Complainant and the fact that she was not legally advised, it is arguable that she did the best she could and did not make an error at all. Alternatively, I deem such errors as she did make (if such they were) to be minor and harmless in nature. 

The proceedings in the form of the WRC Complaint Form were sent to the Registered Office of the Respondent Company. The CEO, Mr. McCaffrey was also addressed in WRC correspondence.

From the communications of Mr. Gary such as they are, it is clear that as at the initial day of hearing, the Respondent’s CEO was sufficiently aware of the existence of the proceedings such that Mr. Gary appeared to be in a position explain his personal situation even if Mr. Gary did not at that stage formally represent the Respondent.

Mr. Gary applied for and procured on behalf of the Respondent a postponement of the hearing on the 15th of March 2024 which was granted by the WRC.

The only objection received to the proposed amendment to the title of the Respondent was from Mr. Gary. That email communication does not confirm on whose behalf it is written and does not specify any grounds for the objection purportedly taken to the proposed amendment.

In the light of the above I am satisfied, and I so find that it is in the interests of justice that I amend the title of the proceedings so that the Respondent is:

Brazilian Coffee House Limited

and accordingly, I hereby make that order. 

Discrimination on Grounds of Pregnancy/Maternity

Applicable Law

Section 6(1) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2021 (“the Acts”) provides that discrimination shall be taken to occur where:

“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) ...”.

Section 6 (2) sets out the grounds in respect of which discrimination, as defined above is prohibited. Of relevance to the present case is ground (a) the “Gender Ground”.

Section 6(2)(a) of the Acts defines the discriminatory ground of gender as a situation where, as between two individuals:

“(a) that one is a woman and the other is a man (in this Act referred to as “the

gender ground”)”

Generally, a comparator is required to establish liability pursuant to the above provisions. However, a specific exception is enacted by Section 6(2)A, which provides that less favourable treatment on pregnancy or maternity leave is deemed to constitute discrimination on the gender ground.  Accordingly in the case of a claim for discrimination on grounds of pregnancy/maternity, no comparator need be identified.

Section 8 (1) paragraph (b) of the Acts prohibits discrimination against an employee in relation to conditions of employment.

Section 85A of the Acts makes specific provision in relation to the burden of proof in Discrimination Claims.

Section 85A (1) of the Acts 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.”

In the case of Teresa Mitchell v Southern Health Board (Cork University Hospital) AEE/99/8, [2001] 12E.L.R. 201, the Labour Court concluded that:

“a complainant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, the primary facts on which they rely in seeking to raise a presumption of unlawful discrimination. It is only if these primary facts are established to the satisfaction of the Court, and they are regarded by the Court as being of sufficient significance to raise presumption of discrimination, that the onus shifts to the respondent to prove that there was no infringement of the principle of equal treatment”

The Labour Court has held in Hallinan v. Moy Valley ResourcesDEC-S2008-025 that to establish the relevant facts the Complainant must:

(a)    establish that he or she is covered by the protected ground;

(b)    Establish the specific treatment has allegedly taken place;

(c)     The treatment was less favourable than was or would be afforded to a person not covered by the relevant discriminatory ground.

The evidence of the Complainant was uncontroverted. She alleged that upon the announcement of her pregnancy in August 2022 and thereafter up to commencing her maternity leave she was subjected to adverse treatment which took the form of:

Unreasonable and unlawful demands to work during her maternity leave;

Unjust and unfair criticism of her work;

Hostility whereby the Respondent’s CEO yelled at the Complainant saying “I’m not talking to you!”;

Hostility where the Complainant was ignored and excluded from meetings relevant to her work and not provided with information necessary for the performance of her role.

The Complainant made a detailed written grievance to the Respondent complaining of the above and other issues which she expected the Respondent to investigate. The Complainant expressly referenced the announcement of her pregnancy and expressly linked this announcement to the behaviour which formed the bulk of the factual issues set out in the complaint. 

The Complainant followed up this written grievance on two separate occasions and still the Respondent did not investigate.

The Complainant instituted the present proceedings as a last resort to compel the Respondent to engage. Even then there was no engagement from the Respondent and ultimately the Complainant resigned on the basis that the Respondent’s failure to address her grievances left her with no choice.

The allegation regarding the male comparator being paid at a higher rate was included in the Complainant’s written grievances which also included an allegation that this individual was afforded more favourable terms including a work-from-home facility. These allegations were based entirely on the Complainant’s understanding gleaned from what a colleague had told her. As part of the process of addressing these allegations I directed the Respondent to provide details of the terms and conditions worked by and the remuneration paid to this named male comparator. Those directions were ignored. In the context of the present claim the Complainant could not sustain a discrimination in pay claim as regards the higher rate allegedly paid to this individual since she was not at work from the time that he was hired until her resignation and thus could not have sustained a loss as such. Nonetheless, the fact that these complaints of discrimination were included in the written complaints and not investigated or addressed in any way by the Respondent is of relevance when assessing the facts established which then fall to be considered by reference to Section 85 A.  In addition insofar as the facts alleged are relied upon to support an allegation of discrimination on grounds of pregnancy /maternity there is no requirement, by operation of Section 6 (2) A, for the Complainant to identify a comparator. 

In all of the circumstances, on the uncontroverted evidence and submissions of the Complainant, I am satisfied that the Complainant has established facts from which an inference of discrimination can be drawn pursuant to Section 85 A. The discrimination took the form of adverse treatment which occurred following the announcement of by the Complainant of her pregnancy and which continued up to the commencement of her maternity leave. During her maternity leave the Complainant provided the Respondent with detailed statements of her grievances as she did not feel safe to return to work following her maternity leave unless they were adequately addressed. She deferred her return to work pending her grievance being addressed. The grievances were not addressed.

in the absence of any rebuttal by the Respondent, I find that the Complainant has met the burden of proof in Section 85 A sufficiently as to establish that the Respondent discriminated against the Complainant on grounds of pregnancy/maternity contrary to Sections 6 and 8 of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 - 2021.

The Complainant gave evidence that she was very stressed and worried about work during and after her pregnancy and that this interfered with her enjoyment of having her new baby. After her resignation she said that she had no confidence given the way she had been repeatedly criticised by the Respondent. I am satisfied that the Complainant suffered significant distress, upset and inconvenience, from August 2022 and continuing up to and beyond the date of her resignation as a result of the discriminatory conduct of the Respondent which was a breach of her statutory rights and that she should be compensated for the effects of this upset, distress and inconvenience. In the circumstances I deem a figure of €35,000 to be an appropriate level of compensation in all of the circumstances and the Respondent is directed to pay that sum to the Complainant otherwise than by way of remuneration for breach of her statutory rights. 

The Respondent discriminated against the Complainant on grounds of pregnancy. The Respondent is directed to pat the sum of €35,000 to the Complainant by way of non-remuneration-based compensation for the effects of the discrimination.

Equality Acts 1998- 2021 - Section 6 (1), Section 6 (2) (a), Section 6 (2) A, Section 8, Section 85 A – Amendment of Title of Respondent  -  County Louth VEC –V- Equality Tribunal [2009] IEHC 370 - Eleanor O'Higgins v University College Dublin and The Labour Court [2013] IEHC 431 - Re MJBCH Ltd. [2013] IEHC 256 - Tina Mary  Lukose v Riada Care Ltd T/A Glenashling Nursing Home ADJ-00043777 – Discrimination on Grounds of Pregnancy -  Teresa Mitchell v Southern Health Board (Cork University Hospital) AEE/99/8, [2001] 12E.L.R. 201 - Hallinan v. Moy Valley ResourcesDEC-S2008-025