Summary of Equality Officer's Decision No DEC-E2007-041
Ms Mary Bermingham (Represented by MANDATE)
vs
Muldowney's Licenced Premises (Represented by Abbott International Consultancy Services)
Headnotes
Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2007, section 6 - age, interview, burden of proof, section 15, agent.
Background
The complainant was employed as a cleaner at the respondent licenced premises. Food service was operated on a concession basis at the pub and the complainant had been working 15 out of 33 hours per week in the kitchen area. When the catering concession was awarded to a new operator in 2004 he informed the complainant and a colleague that they would no longer be required to work in the kitchen area and the respondent gave the complainant alternative duties in other areas of the pub to make up the shortfall in her hours. The complainant alleges that she was informed by the catering operator that she was too old for work in the kitchen such as lifting heavy pots. The complainant believes that the catering operator wanted a younger profile of staff in the food area and stated that he subsequently retained a younger person.
Conclusions
The Equality Officer found the evidence of the complainant and that of a colleague to be credible and accepted that they were led to believe by the catering operator that they were considered too old for work in the kitchen. The Equality Officer found that although the catering operator was not the complainant's employer, he was as an agent of the respondent as referred to in Section 15 of the Act and any breach of equality legislation by the catering operator should be treated as a breach by the complainant's employer. The Equality Officer accepted that there was an element of substitution when a younger person was retained by the catering operator and concluded that the complainant had adduced evidence of discriminatory treatment which the respondent had failed to rebut.
Decision
The Equality Officer found that the respondent did discriminate against the complainant on the age ground and ordered that the respondent pay to the complainant the amount of €2,000 by way of compensation for the discriminatory treatment.