Equality and Discrimination

Labour Court Awards €51,168 for Discrimination Based Dismissal After Maternity Leave

The Labour Court has awarded the maximum amount open to it-€51,168-for the effects of discrimination in a case involving an employee returning to work after maternity leave.


Karen Kelly worked for G4S Secure Solutions (Ireland) Limited and had been awarded €11,602.50 at a Workplace Relations Commission hearing. Both employer and employee appealed this decision, the employee not being satisfied with the amount awarded and the employer not happy with the decision to find discrimination against Ms Kelly.

Ms Kelly had brought her claim for discrimination pursuant to the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015 on the basis that the employer did not let her return to the post she had occupied prior going on maternity leave.

Ms Kelly had been employed on a site in Swords but after her return from maternity leave G4S had instructed her not to attend the Swords site. She was advised that she was not allowed to return to that site because the employer’s client in Swords had requested that she not return to their site.

Ms Kelly was offered a fixed term contract-of 3 months, later extended to 6 months-in the employer’s head office in Ballymount. This was problematic for the employee, however, as it involved a 4-hour round trip to work and no other offers were made to her.

In April 2018 the employer stopped paying Ms Kelly and Ms Kelly requested her P45 in June 2018.

Ms Kelly’s case was founded on discrimination on the basis that had she not gone on maternity leave she would in all probability continue to work in the Swords site on a permanent or CID contract.

The employee’s case

Ms Kelly’s side argued that where a dismissal is based on a discriminatory ground the Labour Court is obliged to take into account the manner and effects of the dismissal to ensure any award is effective, proportionate and dissuasive in accordance with the principles in the ECJ case of Von Colson& Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen [1984] ECR 1891.

The fact that she was not given her P45 was also raised as an issue which compounded Ms Kelly’s difficulties in accessing social welfare payments.

The employer’s case

The employer’s position was that she was not dismissed nor discriminated against but the employer’s hands were tied insofar as it was their client who insisted that Ms Kelly not be sent back to the Swords site. The employer also stated that Ms Kelly had resigned by reason of her seeking her P45 and they had done their best to get her back onto the Swords site, but the client would not agree to this.

For this reason, they claimed, no discriminatory dismissal had occurred.

Labour Court findings

The Labour Court referred to the general right to return to work on the expiry of protective leave, as set out in the Maternity Protection Act 1994 and to the Employment Equality Acts dealing with discrimination in relation to work.

The Court also referred to the right to suitable alternative work in certain circumstances on return to work.

The court found that the employer could not rely on the insistence of the employer’s client that she not return to Swords as trumping Ms Kelly’s statutory rights.

It also found that the employer could not rely on the argument that it was not reasonably practicable to return the employee to her previous job and that a role involving a 4 hour round trip was a suitable alternative as envisaged by the Maternity Protection Act 1994.

The Court found that prior to her maternity leave Ms Kelly was working 30 minutes from home on a permanent contract; after her protective leave she was expected to travel 4 hours each day and work on a fixed term contract. Based on those facts the Court did not accept that the terms of the contract offered were ‘not less favourable’. The Court noted that no other option was put to the Complainant at any stage in the process.

The Labour Court was satisfied that this was a discrimination-based dismissal and awarded the maximum amount the Court could award, €51,168, as the compensation in such cases must be proportionate, effective and dissuasive.

Read the full decision here.

Unfair Dismissal

Exceptions to the 12 Months’ Service Requirement in Unfair Dismissal Claims


If you are unfairly dismissed and wish to bring a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 you will need to have been employed continuously for 12 months.

If you do not have 12 months’ service you cannot bring a claim for unfair dismissal or constructive dismissal if you cannot clear this hurdle.

That is the bad news; the good news is there are some important exceptions to this 12 months’ service requirement. Let’s take a look at them, shall we?

Exceptions to 12 Months’ Service Requirement

  1. Protected disclosure-if you are dismissed for having made a protected disclosure under the Protected Disclosures act 2014 you do not need 12 months’ service
  2. Discrimination-if you were dismissed on a discriminatory ground you will be able to bring a claim under the Employment Equality Acts without 12 months’ service
  3. Trade union-an employee who is dismissed for trade union membership or activity does not require 12 months’ service
  4. Pregnancy, birth, breastfeeding-any dismissal connected with these issues can be brought without 12 months’ service
  5. Maternity protection-any dismissal arising from the exercise of a maternity right does not need 12 months’ service
  6. Adoptive leave-any dismissal arising from the exercise of an adoptive leave right does not need 12 months’ service
  7. Parental leave and force majeure leave-12 months’ service is not required for unfair dismissal claims arising from these rights
  8. National Minimum Wage Act, 2000-any dismissal arising from the employee seeking to exercise rights under this act can be brought without 12 months’ service
  9. Carer’s Leave act-12 months’ continuous service is not required.

It is inevitable that if you bring a claim the employer may well argue that you do not have the necessary 12 months’ service and will deny that you were dismissed arising from any of the exceptions set out above.

Clearly, each case will be dealt with on its own facts and circumstances but you will need to be prepared for this argument and ready to put forward facts from which it can be inferred that your dismissal did arise from the exercise of one of the categories listed above.

Equality and Discrimination

Discriminatory Dismissal Leads to €46,000 Compensation Award

workplace discrimination ireland

Could you afford an employment law award of €46,000 against you? Let’s face it you would be hard pressed to just take it on the chin and chalk it down to experience.

But that is what you could be facing if you are at the losing end of a WRC decision as occurred recently in a case involving a claim founded on discrimination.

An office manager in a software firm was awarded €46,000 in compensation by the WRC for her discriminatory dismissal.

The employee who brought the claim had an incurable degenerative disease (fibromyalgia) and was dismissed whilst on sick leave. This disease caused her muscle pain, fatigue, sleep and memory problems.

The €46,000 award comprised 2 parts:

  1. €23,000 in respect of the actual discriminatory dismissal and
  2. €23,000 for the failure of the employer to make reasonable accommodation in allowing the employee to continue in her job.

The award took into account the way the employer dismissed the employee: by telephone.


The background to the case is the employee was employed since 2015 and went on certified sick leave in May 2017; in November 2017 she was dismissed by conference call. Whilst she was out sick her occupational therapist made a number of recommendations as to how she could be accommodated in the workplace including:

  • Working from home
  • More rest breaks
  • Flexible working rosters
  • A temporary reduction in working hours.

The employee was then involved in a car accident in August 2017 and she was not expected to return to work until January 2018 as she required a spinal implant procedure.

However, in November 2017 she was told by phone that she was being given one month’s notice of dismissal but would be paid in lieu of notice and her termination was, therefore, with immediate effect. The employer mentioned incapacity and “the problems her absenteeism were causing.”

In her evidence at the WRC the employee told that she was not given any warning of her potential termination nor was she given the chance to appeal the decision. The employee was on certified sick leave at the time and was taken aback at the decision which had a significant impact on her from a personal and financial perspective.

She also spoke of the pride she took in being able to work despite her difficulties and she was anxious to show that sufferers from such diseases/disabilities can do things and take part in the workplace.

The employer denied it failed to offer reasonable accommodation and stated it could not hold her position open indefinitely.

Warning for employers

This case is further evidence, if any were needed, that employers need to be very careful about how they deal with their employees, especially when it comes to terminating employment on the grounds of incapacity.

Employers are perfectly entitled to terminate an employee’s job on the grounds of incapacity but only after looking carefully at the options, obtaining updated medical evidence, warning the employee his/her job is at risk of termination, and giving them the opportunity to appeal the decision.

Otherwise, the employer runs the risk of a discrimination-based claim either on the grounds of discriminatory dismissal or straightforward discrimination or failure to make reasonable accommodation for the employee’s continued employment.

Equality and Discrimination Unfair Dismissal

Unfair Dismissal and Discriminatory Dismissal Are Parallel Claims-You Must Choose One or the Other

discriminatory dismissal

Did you know that you cannot bring a claim for unfair dismissal and discriminatory dismissal at the same time?

They are considered to be parallel complaints and you will have to choose one or the other.

Let me clarify: section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1988 states

77.— F117 [ (1) A person who claims —

( a ) to have been discriminated against or subjected to victimisation,

( b ) to have been dismissed in circumstances amounting to discrimination or victimisation,

( c ) not to be receiving remuneration in accordance with an equal remuneration term, or

( d ) not to be receiving a benefit under an equality clause,

in contravention of this Act may, subject to subsections (3) to (9) , seek redress by referring the case to the F118 [ Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission ] . ]

Thus, you are claiming that you have been dismissed in circumstances amounting to discrimination or victimisation.

You can also bring a claim under the Unfair Dismissals act, 1977 but you will have to choose which of these claims you will ultimately pursue.

Why? Because Section 101(4)(a) of the Employment Equality act, 1998 states:

(4A) (a) Where an employee refers —

(i) a case or claim under section 77 , and

(ii) a claim for redress under the Act of 1977,

to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission in respect of a dismissal, then, from the relevant date, the case or claim referred to in subparagraph (i) shall, in so far only as it relates to such dismissal, be deemed to have been withdrawn unless, before the relevant date, the employee withdraws the claim under the Act of 1977.

(b) In this subsection —

‘ Act of 1977 ’ means the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 ;

‘ dismissal ’ has the same meaning as it has in the Act of 1977;

‘ relevant date ’ means such date as may be prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, regulations made by the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. ]

This means that the discrimination based claim under the Employment Equality act, 1988 will be deemed to be withdrawn unless, 41 days after notification from the WRC, you withdraw the claim under the Unfair Dismissals act, 1977.

Then, if you withdraw the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 your discrimination based claim under the Equality Act 1988 will go ahead.

If you don’t respond to the letter you receive from the WRC your claim under the Equality Act, 1988 will be deemed to be withdrawn and your unfair dismissal claim will be dealt with.

Section 101A of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 also prohibits parallel claims as follows:

101A. — Where the conduct of an employer constitutes both a contravention of Part III or IV and a contravention of either the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001 or the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 , relief may not be granted to the employee concerned in respect of the conduct under both this Act and either of the said Acts.


If you bring claims to the Workplace Relations Commission sometimes your case will be straightforward, but sometimes you can easily fall into a technical or legal roadblock that may give you a nasty surprise.

You should always seek legal advice before you bring any claim as it is vital that you choose the correct cause of action. This cannot be remedied later on and I have seen some very silly, basic mistakes made by workers who ultimately make some simple but fatal mistakes and end up with nothing but heartache and disappointment.

Equality and Discrimination Unfair Dismissal

How to Deal with Employees On Long Term Sick Leave-2 Vitally Important Cases


Long term sick leave.

What can or should you, as an employer, do?

Have you considered a discrimination claim, on the grounds of disability, being brought against you?

Many employers have to deal with employees absent from work on long term sick leave. Two cases which should be studied closely in this area are:

  • An Equality Tribunal case (E2011-114), Eugena Carroll and H.J. Heinz Frozen & Chilled Foods Limited and
  • An Employment Appeals Tribunal case, De Sousa v Kepak Group, UD964/2011.

(At the end of this piece you will find links to the full decisions in these cases).

Let’s take a look at De Sousa v Kepak Group, UD964/2011 first.

De Sousa V Kepak Group

Mr. De Sousa was employed as a butcher with the Kepak Group from 2002. He suffered back pain in work in 2004 and in 2007, after attending a physiotherapist; he was unable to attend work due to ongoing back pain.

He returned in March 2008 but had to stop again in June 2008. He returned again in 2009 but only lasted 1 day and had to quit again.

He was certified fit to return to work in October 2010 but complained of back pain and collapsed resulting in an ambulance being called.

In November, 2010 the Site Manager wrote to him and told him that due to his absence from  and unavailability for work the contract was frustrated and dismissed him.

Mr. De Sosa brought a claim for unfair dismissal.

The EAT found that Mr. De Sosa stayed in contact with the employer during his illness and the employer was anxious to retain Mr. De Sosa in employment.

However there were no jobs in the Kepak plant that were suitable for Mr. De Sosa as administrative jobs had become computerised and other work such as sweeping the floor involved some physical activity.

The employee was assisted in his return to work being given the least demanding physical job available as a trimmer. However when this did not work out the employer wrote to him telling him that his employment was under review due to his inability to perform the contract.

The letter of termination gave Mr. De Sosa an opportunity to appeal the decision, which he did not avail of.

The EAT found that the Unfair Dismissals act 1977 had no application in this case as the contract of employment was terminated by operation of law as the contract had become inoperable and was frustrated.

Eugena Carroll and H.J. Heinz Frozen & Chilled Foods Limited

This case involved a dismissal where the employee claimed that she was discriminated against as a result of her disability and reasonable accommodation was not made for her return to work. She brought her claim for discrimination on gender and disability ground under the Employment Equality Acts.

Ms. Carroll was employed as a general operative by H.J. Heinz Frozen & Chilled Foods Limited on the 12th July 1993 and she was dismissed on the 15th June 2007.

She was initially worked in the bakery department but after it was closed she was transferred to clerical work in the purchasing area.

She was not happy there because she had no training. She then moved to engineering stores doing stock taking and later was transferred to the chilled food department. At first she worked on the frozen food line which involved lifting up to 25kgs. And she then moved to the production line which involved putting food into trays.

She went out sick from work on the end of March 2004 with repetitive strain injury and was referred for physiotherapy. Unfortunately her condition did not improve and she was referred to a consultant and it was diagnosed she was also suffering from fibromyalgia.

She was seen by the company’s occupational health advisor on a number of occasions. The complainant’s medical advice, which the company had been kept fully informed about, was that she could not work in a cold environment such as that which obtained in the chilled department and that she could not lift heavy weights.

She said that she was anxious to go back to work and she believed that the company could have found work for her in the non chilled area or in the clerical area.

She said that she had several meetings with Occupational Health and with HR but no suitable position was offered to her other than to return to the chilled area or in an area where she was required to lift weights which she could not because of her medical condition.

She said that she wanted to return to work but could not give a return date because she was not fit to return to the position in the chilled area. She was called to a meeting with her manager and HR on the 15th of June 2007 and because she was not able to give them a return to work date and there were no alternative positions in the company which could accommodate the restrictions, she was informed, given that she was on sick leave for over 3 years the company had decided to terminate her employment.

She was advised of her right to appeal. The appeal was unsuccessful.

The complainant submits that the dismissal was discriminatory in that she was not offered reasonable accommodation because of her disability.

Decision of the  Equality Officer

The 1st thing the employee has to do in a case like this is to establish a “prima facie” case of discrimination.

The Equality Officer held:

“I am satisfied that the complainant’s condition is a disability within the meaning of the Acts. Having heard the evidence I am satisfied that the complainant was dismissed from the employment for reasons connected with her capacity to perform her job due to her disability. Therefore she has established a prima facie case of discriminatory dismissal.”

“In considering this case I am guided by the Labour Court determination in the case of Humphrey’s v Westwood Fitness Club Det. No. EED037 and which was upheld by the Circuit Court. The case concerned a complaint of dismissal on the disability ground and whether the defence under section 16(1)(b) of the Acts was applicable. The Labour Court set out the test which should be applied to by an employer if they have formed a bona fide belief that the complainant is no longer able to perform the duties for which they are employed and stated:

“At a minimum, however, an employer, should ensure that he or she in full possession of all the material facts concerning the employee’s condition and that the employee is given fair notice that the question of his or her dismissal for incapacity is being considered. The employee must also be allowed an opportunity to influence the employer’s decision.

In practical terms this will normally require a two-stage enquiry, which looks firstly at the factual position concerning the employee’s capability including the degree of impairment arising from the disability and its likely duration. This would involve looking at the medical evidence available to the employer either from the employee’s doctors or obtained independently.

Secondly, if it is apparent that the employee is not fully capable Section 16(3) of the Act requires the employer to consider what if any special treatment or facilities may be available by which the employee can become fully capable. The Section requires that the cost of such special treatment or facilities must also be considered. Here, what constitutes nominal cost will depend on the size of the organisation and its financial resources.

Finally, such an enquiry could only be regarded as adequate if the employee concerned is allowed a full opportunity to participate at each level and is allowed to present relevant medical evidence and submissions.”

Dunne J. in the Circuit appeal stated that the there is a legal obligation under the Employment Equality Acts for an employer to take advice from either the complainant’s own doctor or an independent doctor where there are concerns in relations to the health of a worker.”

“In relation to the first part of the test which requires the respondent to obtain facts about the complainant’s medical condition, I note that the respondent had several medical reports about the complainant’s medical condition both from her GP and the company’s own doctor and these medical reports stated that she could not work in temperatures below 18 to 20 degrees or lift weights in excess of one or two kilogram’s. I note also that the respondent called the complainant to a number of meetings with the company where the option of returning to work in the light of her medical condition was discussed. I am satisfied that the respondent appraised himself of the full facts about the medical condition, through reports from the complainant’s GP and the company’s own doctor, before making a decision to dismiss her. I am also satisfied that the respondent gave the complainant notice that he was considering her dismissal due to her incapacity.”

“In relation to the second leg of the above test which relates to reasonable accommodation, I have examined the evidence and I note that the respondent made several suggestions about the complainant returning to work in the chilled department but her medical condition prevented her working there as all the operator roles were below 10 degrees and she required a temperature of between 18 and 20 degrees.”

“The company offered her subject to medical certification to bring her back to work on a three day week, light duties and a rotational position but the complainant’s GP would not certify her fit to return to the positions offered because of the temperature restrictions. I note that the respondent e-mailed all the heads of department on four occasions over the three year period of the complainant’s sick leave seeking alternative roles but there were no suitable vacancies except in the production area were available. Likewise I note that the complainant was also asked to do a virtual tour of the company with OH to identify roles which were suitable for her. A number of roles were deemed suitable and she was advised that the position would only be available if a vacancy existed. There were a number of vacancies in these areas over this period but the complainant did not have the qualifications or experience required.”

“I am satisfied that the dismissal of the complainant was due to her incapacity because of her disability to perform the work she was employed to do and in the circumstances the dismissal was not a discriminatory dismissal. Having regard to the provisions of Section 16(1)(b), I find that the dismissal was lawful in accordance with that provision.”

“I find that:

the respondent did not discriminate against the complainant on the disability grounds pursuant to section 6(2)(g) of the Acts and contrary to section 8(6) of the Acts in relation to her dismissal and that the defence under Section 16(1)(b) applied;

(ii) the respondent did not discriminate against the complainant on the disability ground pursuant to section 6(2)(g) of the Acts in relation to the provision of reasonable accommodation to the complainant in accordance with section 16(3)(b) of the Acts.”


If you have an employee on long term sick leave, and if you are considering dismissing on the grounds of incapacity, you will not go too far wrong if you follow the steps taken in the Carroll v Heinz case above.

Read the full De Sousa v Kepak case here.

Read the full Carroll v Heinz foods case here.

Here’s an interesting 3rd case where the employee won €40,000 for the employer’s failure to handle a long term illness/disability correctly.