€100,000 awarded for discriminisation and victimisation
DEC-E2010-126 An Employee -v- An Employer Grounds/Issue: Discriminatory Treatment, Victimisation. Award: €50,000 for Discrimination and €50,000 for victimisation.
The case concerned a claim by Ms Denise Batt that Palmece Ltd t/a Comfort Inn discriminated against her on the grounds of gender and family status contrary to Sections 6(2)(a) and (c) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2008, in terms of treating her less favourably, and dismissing her through discriminatory selection for redundancy, because she was pregnant.
The complainant submitted that she was employed by the respondent as a General Manager, starting on a three-month contract in November 2003, and was made a permanent staff member in February 2004. The complainant then enjoyed a period of pay rises and bonuses due to her performance in her role. In January 2006, the complainant advised the respondent that she was pregnant, and of the expected confinement date. The complainant submitted that shortly afterwards she received a letter from the respondent in which perceived flaws in her work were pointed out to her, something that had never happened before.
The complainant went on maternity leave in June 2006. In October 2006, she made a request to return to work on a four-day week, which was refused. She alleged that she was not allowed or encouraged to apply for a promotional position despite her length of service. Likewise, the complainant submitted that when she expressed interest for a position of manager at the Airport Hotel, she was not interviewed for same, but simply informed that the position had gone to a better candidate. She was refused information on the interview criteria and marking scheme when she requested same from the respondent. The complainant was in the advanced stages of another pregnancy at that time and submitted that this would have been clear to management.
The complainant further submitted that when the undertaking was transferred to new ownership, she was pressurised into accepting redundancy, regardless of the fact that her position was not redundant. She further alleged that a male colleague who was made redundant on the same day as herself received a much superior redundancy package. She claimed that this amounted to discrimination on the ground of gender.
The respondent submitted that, due to the fact that the complainant had complained about her selection for redundancy to the Employment Appeals Tribunal under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, she was precluded from having the matter investigated again by the Equality Tribunal pursuant to the provisions of S.101 of the Acts.
This argument received short shrift from the Equality Officer, who found that the respondent had discriminated against the complainant in relation to promotion and other matters. The reasons behind the €50k award for victimisation were interesting:
" The complainant's potential victimisation relates to the manner in which her redundancy was effected. The complainant herself did not bring this complaint to the Tribunal, however, in the course of her evidence, I formed the opinion that it fell to be investigated and proceeded to do so based on the decision of Johnson J in Siobhan Long v. The Labour Court, Mairead Blackhall, and Powers Supermarkets Ltd t/a Quinnsworth, 1990 No 58 Judicial Review , 25 May 1990. In accordance with the principles of fair procedures and natural and constitutional justice, and following the Supreme Court in The State (Irish Pharmaceutical Union) v. Employment Appeals Tribunal [1987 ILRM 36], I informed the respondent of this and invited their observations on the matter. The respondent did not avail of this opportunity."
A total of €100,000 was awarded in this case.
