by Anne Lyne October-28-2015 in Employment Law
A National School v A Worker- Labour Court Determination No. EDA1515
The Labour Court has upheld a decision of the Equality Tribunal that a teacher was entitled to succeed in her claim that she was discriminated on the grounds of age and religious belief in the course of an interview for the position of principal of the school in which she worked.
Discrimination on grounds of religious belief
It was accepted by all parties that the candidates were asked by a member of the selection board, Sr C. for their opinions on a submission made by the INTO to a Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in schools. This submission has been described “as expounding a position that differed from what some would regard as the orthodox stance of the Catholic Church, as it advocated a broader acceptance of religious diversity in schools”. The teacher said in her evidence that she did not know why she was asked a question on this topic and she did not know how to answer it. The Court held that “it seems reasonable to infer from that evidence” that the teacher “may not have answered the question in a way that Sr. C, or her colleagues on the Selection Panel considered satisfactory”.
Exception
Section 37 of the Employment Equality Act provides for an exception to the general prohibition on discrimination on religious grounds. The exception allows a religious, education or medical institution to treat an employee more favourably than another employee, where it is reasonable to do so in order to maintain the religious ethos of the institution, or where it takes action which is reasonably necessary to prevent an employee or a prospective employee from undermining the religious ethos of the institution.
The Court held that this section should be “ascribed a narrow orbit and it can only avail an employer where the conditions in which it is expressed to operate actually apply.” The Court held that the school “did not adduce any evidence on which it could be held that the canvassing of the private views of candidates for the post in issue on the question of religious patronage and pluralism was reasonable or necessary in order to maintain the religious ethos of the school”. The Court also found that there was no evidence to suggest that “whatever views the Complainant had on that topic would impact on her capacity to act in good faith and with loyalty to the school.”
Sexual Orientation
The teacher’s evidence to the Court was that Sr C had in the course of the interview, asked her the question “what about the homos?”. The teacher’s evidence was that this question “floored” her and that she did not know how to answer it. The teacher’s evidence was that she said in reply “they’re already there”. The Respondent denied that the views of candidates on homosexuality were canvassed or that any questions that could be construed as referring to that topic were asked in the course of the interview. Sr C’s evidence to the Court that she strenuously denied asking the question “what about the homos”, was corroborated by the other members of the selection panel. The teacher’s evidence was not corroborated. The Court concluded that “as a matter of probability the recollection of Sr C” and that of the other members of selection panel, is “to be preferred over the Complainant’s recollection” and the appeal of the school on this ground succeeded.
Qualifications
The teacher submitted that her qualifications for the post were superior to those of the successful candidate. The Court held that if the teacher succeeded in establishing that her qualifications were superior to those of the successful candidate that this would be sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the school. The Court held that on “reviewing the evidence the Court finds it extraordinary and somewhat incredulous that Sr. C could dismiss the relevance of the Complainant’s academic attainment solely on the basis that it was obtained in the USA”. The Court also found it “puzzling that the members of the Selection Panel should dismiss her role and experience as Deputy Principal as being of no significance”.
Outcome
The Court was satisfied that a less qualified candidate was preferred for appointment over the Complainant and that an inference of discrimination on grounds of both age and religious belief is within the range of reasonable inferences that can be drawn for that primary fact.
The Court held that the testimony provided by the members of the Selection Panel on the reasons for their decision was couched in vague and general terms and the Court found it unconvincing. The Court held that “no cogent explanation was provided as to why the successful candidate was preferred over the Complainant who, in overall terms, was clearly better qualified both in terms of her experience and her academic attainment”.
The Court held that the Complainant is entitled to succeed on both of those grounds and awarded compensation in the amount of €54,000 (upholding the monetary award made by the Equality Tribunal) for the effects of discrimination suffered by the Complainant.
Share this article:
About the Author
.jpg)
Anne Lyne
Anne is a partner and leads the Employment Law team at Hayes solicitors advising on the full range of employment related issues.
Anne understands that if an employment related issue arises that responsiveness and practical assistance are key for clients. Anne and the team are available for clients to ensure that matters are addressed promptly.