In Emily Williams v Board of Management, St Tola’s National School (ADJ-00055461) the Complainant alleged she was discriminated against by reason of her family status by the Respondent primary school. The Complainant submitted a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) under the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015 (the “Acts”).
Facts: The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a teacher on a series of fixed-term contracts from September 2022 to August 2024. The Complainant felt she was treated less favourably than others when being considered for teaching roles because she was on maternity leave.
The discrimination complaint submitted by the Complainant focused on two main incidents:
In February 2024 a permanent vacancy arose in the Respondent school due to a resignation while the Complainant was on maternity leave. At the time the Complainant and another teacher “Comparator A” were eligible for a CID, both having worked at the school for two years on fixed-term contracts. The Complainant submitted to the WRC that the Principal of the Respondent awarded the CID to Comparator A without informing her (she found out through a colleague) and without any transparency regarding the decision-making process. The Complainant made inquiries and was later informed that the CID had been awarded based on the highest score from a previous interview round in 2023. The Principal of the Respondent gave evidence to the WRC that this was school policy.
On 18th June 2024 the Complainant interviewed for a fixed-term position in the school for the new school year. At the end of the interview, the Principal congratulated her on the birth of her baby daughter and stated “you really should enjoy every moment at home with the baby”. The Complainant gave evidence to the WRC that she felt it was unprofessional to discuss her maternity leave in front of the interview panel and that the comment seemed to hint at her not receiving the position. The Respondent gave evidence to the WRC that the interview was over when the comment was made and all questions had already been asked and answered. The following day the Complainant was informed that her application was unsuccessful.
The Complainant requested her interview scores from the Respondent following contact with her union, the Irish National Teachers’ Organisation (“INTO”). The Complainant told the WRC that she learned from INTO that the school could “roll-over” a teacher’s contract in their third year and there was no requirement to hold another fixed-term position interview. The Complainant believed that the Board of Management decided to proceed with interviews for the fixed-term position, and score her unfairly, because of the possibility that she might have decided to extend her maternity leave if offered the position.
When there was still no reply to her request for her interview scores by 27th August, INTO suggested to the Complainant that she contact the Principal and let her know that she was uncomfortable with the two incidents referred to above, and ask if she would take a call from INTO. The Principal emailed the Complainant later that day re-iterating that the CID was awarded to the candidate with the highest score from the previous interview round. On 29th August the Principal emailed the Complainant her interview scores, however there were no interview notes attached.
Decision: The Adjudicator, Patricia Owens, firstly addressed a preliminary matter regarding statutory time limits. In normal course, complaints under the Acts must be submitted to the WRC within 6 months of the alleged contravention (with an extension of a further 6 months possible in limited circumstances if there was reasonable cause for the delay). The Complainant submitted her complaint to the WRC in November 2024, and the most recent occurrence of alleged discrimination was the interview for the fixed-term position on 18th June 2024. While the CID was awarded in May 2024 and the Respondent argued that a claim relating to that matter was out of time, the Adjudicator found that a continuum of discrimination existed that began with the awarding of the CID and culminated in the Complainant not being appointed to a fixed term position for the new school year. On that basis, the Adjudicator was satisfied that all of the issues forming part of the Complainant’s claim were within time.
The Adjudicator referred to settled law that, in the first instance, the onus is on the employee to establish an arguable case of discrimination before the Respondent is required to rebut it. The Adjudicator was satisfied that the Complainant had discharged this evidential burden. The Adjudicator noted in particular the Complainant’s arguments that she was treated unfavourably compared to her comparators not on maternity leave; that Comparator A, who was not as experienced as her, was awarded the CID based on a previous interview process in 2023; and that Comparator B, who had only previously provided ad hoc cover to the school, was appointed to the fixed-term position.
After proceeding to hear the substantive case, the Adjudicator found that the complaint of discrimination was well-founded and ordered the Respondent to pay €85,000 in compensation for the discrimination. The Adjudicator concluded that no satisfactory explanation was given for the decision to award the CID based on the order of merit in the previous fixed-term competition in 2023. The Adjudicator noted that the equal entitlement of the Complainant to be considered for the CID was disregarded even to the point that the Respondent believed she had no entitlement to be informed a viable CID was available. The Respondent’s explanation that it was school policy was rejected by the Adjudicator, as it emerged during the course of the hearing that no such policy existed. The Adjudicator had regard to the Department of Education and Skills’ Circular No. 44/2019. This circular provides that reference may be made to a panel of suitable applicants being set up for future vacancies when advertising teaching positions, but that “permanent vacancies may not be filled from a panel established following interviews for a fixed-term post”. In addition, the circular provided that where a panel is compiled, it is applicable for any vacancies filled “within four months”. The Adjudicator noted that the CID was a permanent vacancy, and that the appointment for the CID in 2024 based on the 2023 panel was well outside the four-month timeline prescribed in the circular.
In relation to the fixed-term position, the Adjudicator concluded that the Respondent failed to provide any evidence (such as interview notes) to explain how the interview panel arrived at their conclusions for the interview scores. The Adjudicator considered the absence of such evidence to be “fatal” to the Respondent’s defence of the inference of discrimination. In relation to the qualifications category, both the Complainant and Comparator B received the same score. However, in nearly all other categories the members of the interview panel scored the Complainant lower. In particular, the Adjudicator noted that the Complainant, who had 2 years’ experience working in the school, was marked lower in relation to both “Classroom Management & Administration” and “Awareness of School Procedures” than a candidate who had provided ad hoc cover. One of the marking sheets for the Complainant also had a reduction in one of the scores which was not adequately explained at the hearing.
In relation to the comments made by the Principal, the Adjudicator found that the Respondent had failed to demonstrate that these comments did not have an adverse effect on the interview outcome. The Adjudicator appreciated that it may well have been the Principal’s intention to pass on her well wishes, however the interview had not yet closed when the comments were made. Even if the questioning had concluded, the scoring had not yet been completed, and the Adjudicator found it “entirely inappropriate” that comments relating to the Complainant’s family status were addressed to her during the interview.
Takeaway for Employers: This WRC decision illustrates the evidential burden that employers bear in employment equality cases. While the initial burden is on the employee to successfully make out a prima facie case, the employer is then required to provide evidence to rebut the inference of discrimination. The absence of interview notes in this case was fatal to the school’s defence, particularly where the identified comparator appeared to have less experience than the Complainant. It is important that all documentation from recruitment processes is retained so that employers can demonstrate their appointments are based on objective criteria and not based on any of the nine discriminatory grounds.
Link – https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2025/august/adj-00055461.html
Authors – Tara Kelly and Jenny Wakely
30th September 2025
Anne O’Connell Solicitors
19-22 Lower Baggot Street
Dublin 2.
If you found this article useful you might like our employment law newsletter. We write monthly articles, like this, covering interesting cases, decisions, news and developments in Ireland.