Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Viktorija  Danilova

TikTok Technology Limited

Representatives

Kiwana Ennis B.L. instructed by  A&L Goodbody

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00066706-001

15/10/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00066706-002

15/10/2024

The complainant says that she experienced discriminatory treatment during the redundancy process while on maternity leave in breach of the Maternity Protection Acts 1994-2004, and despite being on protected maternity leave.

Specific Complaint CA-00066706-001

The complainant says that the key issue was the failure to offer her a suitable alternative role without the necessity to undergo an interview.

Under Section 27 of the Maternity Protection Acts, the employer is required to offer a suitable alternative role on terms no less favorable than the previous position, without requiring an interview.

Instead, she was misinformed that she had to participate in interviews, despite being legally exempt. While she was willing to proceed with interviews as a gesture of good faith, no such opportunities were made available, even for roles she was clearly qualified for.

This has caused her emotional distress, impacting her well-being and that of her (then) unborn child. The entire process has been marked by a blame-shifting approach and misinformation.

There has been inconsistent treatment and discrimination compared to a co-worker on Maternity Leave. While she was contacted and engaged in the redundancy discussions, her colleague did not receive similar communications or options.

This suggests that she was treated less favorably and may have been unfairly singled out for redundancy. The differential treatment between two employees in the same circumstances raises concerns about discrimination and a breach of equality rights under the Employment Equality Acts.

The time line of events is as follows (all 2024).

On  July 29th she was informed that her role was being considered for redundancy.

On July 30th, she was contacted during protected maternity leave and she agreed to engage in good faith.

On September 11th,  she was notified that her role was at risk, and she indicated her intent to take parental leave following maternity leave.

On September 23rd, she was notified of redundancy effective  January 20th,  2025, next day after her maternity leave is finished, with no acknowledgment of her parental leave request. She was denied a fair opportunity to apply for available roles.

On September 25th, HR informed her that the redundancy process was being paused until after her maternity leave. she was presented with two options: engage further or wait until the end of her leave, both of which are legally flawed under the Maternity Protection Acts.

On October 3rd, HR said that she had no legal entitlements during maternity leave. The company’s stance, communicated in an email, was a breach of the Maternity Protection Acts and constitutes discrimination under both Irish and EU laws.

On October 9th,  a third-party vendor contacted her to collect her work laptop while she was still on maternity leave, and no final decision about her redundancy status had been communicated.

On October 11th, she received another email from HR, restating their rejection of her discrimination allegations. They claimed she had stated a preference not to engage in the recruitment process, even though she had expressed willingness to participate if suitable roles were suggested.

Additionally, HR reiterated that she must participate in the recruitment process, further violating her rights under the Maternity Protection Acts.  Any suitable alternative role should be offered without requiring the employee to go through an interview process.

This ensures that an employee’s rights are preserved during maternity leave. This includes the right to be considered for alternative roles and not be disadvantaged because of their absence due to maternity leave.

4. Section 28 – Non-Discrimination During Maternity Leave The company’s actions show a disregard for her protected rights under the law. The differential treatment she experienced, as compared to another employee on maternity leave, only exacerbates the discrimination and undermines the fair treatment expected during such a process.

Specific Complaint CA-00066706-002 EEA Race, Conditions of employment

The complainant believes that her nationality may have also been a factor in the decision-making process. Her employer said that she was hired for the Russian market, even though her employment contract does not specify a language requirement, and for the past two years, she has been working on projects supporting other markets. In contrast, her colleague, who is of a different nationality (Portuguese), did not experience similar redundancy considerations.

This raises concerns about potential discrimination based on nationality, as she has been treated less favorably than a colleague in a similar role and situation.

During the redundancy process, she identified four suitable roles within the company that aligned with her skills and qualifications. However, she was excluded from consideration for these roles, while other employees were actively being interviewed. The company did not bring these opportunities to her attention, and she had to identify them myself, demonstrating a lack of equal opportunity in the redundancy and redeployment process. The relevant sections of the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015 that the company that company has violated. 

In a submission made following receipt of the respondent’s submission the complainant made a further fourteen points.

Seven of these repeated her complaint about the requirement that she apply for jobs already set out, three concerned notification or consultation about the redundancy process, two on the impact on her personal health and two related to details of her skillset.

Evidence of the complainant on affirmation.

The complainant  says that her main issue was that she had to actively search and apply for jobs.

This differed from the treatment given to her co-workers as the company reached out to some of them asking if they wish the company to set up interviews. In respect of her complaint on the race ground she says that she was not employed as a Russian language specialist. The respondent justified her redundancy on the basis of her Russian nationality but in fact she was hired on a more general basis than specifically that.

The respondent is a digital media organisation employing over 2000 people in its Dublin office and the complainant commenced employment on September 20th, 2021 as an MI Ads Service Specialist primarily responsible for moderating advertising content.

She was assigned as an Appeals Specialist in the MI appeals team. That team is responsible for reviewing content already moderated by the MI core operations team where a client appeals against the original moderating decision. As a Russian speaker, she was originally employed as a Russian language specialist to work in the Russian market.

A copy of her offer letter dated August 19th, 2021, provides the offer was for the role of Ads Service Specialist – Russian. However, since the war in Ukraine in February 2022, the Russian market work has significantly reduced, and the complainant and many other Russian language experts were redeployed at that time.

The complainant commenced maternity leave on July 22nd,  2024 at 24 weeks’ pregnancy. She had been on sick leave since February 12th, 2024. Her maternity leave concluded on January 19th, 2025, when she commenced parental leave.

On July 29th, 2024, staff were informed of the potential collective redundancy arising from a proposed restructure of the MI function. The complainant’s role has been impacted by a collective redundancy process carried out in the Monetisation Integrity (MI) function (sitting within the Global Business Solutions (GBS) business) whereby in July 2024 over 300 employees, including the Complainant (who was then on maternity leave), were put at risk of redundancy.

This has resulted in over 150 employees being made redundant.

Having originally been afforded the option to wait until the end of her maternity leave on January 19th,  2025 before engaging in the consultation process, she confirmed she wished to participate during her maternity leave.

However, because of subsequent concerns she raised the process was then put on hold on September 26th,  2024 (prior to the lodging of her complaint form). More recently, at her request, the process was resumed whilst she was still on parental leave (i.e. the period from January 20th,  2025 to March 16th,  2025).

The resumed consultation process has since concluded and on February 27th,  2025 it was confirmed that her role as a Russian language Appeals Specialist within MI was to be made redundant on April 16th,  2025 (being the end of her scheduled annual leave after her current period of parental leave). It should be noted that all MI Russian language Appeals Specialist roles have been made redundant as part of this collective redundancy process.

In order to avoid as many redundancies as possible in this collective redundancy, the Respondent put in place a fair and transparent system by which impacted employees could seek alternative roles and would be prioritised in doing so.

However, the complainant hasrefusedtoapplyforanyavailablesuitablealternativeroles.Thisisonthebasisofherview that the respondent is under an obligation to give her preferential treatment by offering her a suitablealternativeroleinlightofherstatusasanemployeeonmaternityleave.

This is rejected and it is submitted that it amounts to an incorrect understanding of the law. Had she applied for any suitable alternative roles, she would have been prioritised in respect to the internal transfer process (as with all other employees put at risk of redundancy), and her redundancy may have been avoided (and still could be avoided if she applies for and secures an alternative role prior to her termination date of April 16th, 2025).

The complainant has failed to make out any prima face case of discrimination on the grounds of either family status or race in respect of her treatment up to the date of the lodgement of her complaint form on October 15th, 2024. Therefore the two claims should be dismissed.

In her family status discrimination claim, she has alleged discrimination during the collective redundancy process by way of its failure to offer her a suitable alternative role “without interviews” in breach of the provisions of the Maternity Protection Acts 1994 to 2004.

She claimed that this caused her emotional distress. She further claimed that she had been treated differently to another colleague on maternity leave who was also put at risk of redundancy but who did not receive similar communications.

In her claim of race discrimination, as contained in the complaint form, she has alleged she believed her nationality “may” have been a factor in her being put at risk of redundancy. She stated on her complaint form that her nationality is Latvian (and the Respondent is aware of this). She stated she had been told she had been hired to work for the Russian market even though her contract did not specify any language requirement and that she had been working for other markets for the previous two years.

She referred to a Portuguese colleague, whom she noted was of a different nationality, but who had not been put at risk of redundancy. She stated this raised the concern about “potential” discrimination on the basis of nationality.

She further alleged that she had identified four suitable roles during the redundancy consultation process from which she stated she was excluded from consideration. She claimed the failure by the Respondent to bring these opportunities to her attention demonstrated a lack of equal opportunity in the redundancy redeployment process.

There are two complaints under the Employment Equality Acts: one on the Family Status ground and the other on the Race or Nationality ground. The respondent has raised whether a prima facie case has been made out.

As noted above the complainant made a submission just before the hearing setting out her response to the respondent‘s earlier submission (along very similar lines to her original complaint form).

Of the fourteen issues raised in that submission eight relate directly to the issue as to whether the complainant should have been obliged to apply for alternative jobs. Two concern the accuracy of the description of her nationality (which is a matter of detail only), one relates to the selection process,  others relate to the personal impact of all of this on her well-being.

Her case is that as a result of her family status (and possibly her race) she was subjected to less favourable treatment to others who were not in these categories.

The centrality of this issue (having to apply for jobs) to the complainant‘s case was underlined in her own oral evidence. She asserts that she was ‘misinformed’ that she had to do so.

To ground a case under the Act a complainant must make out a prima facie case.

The standard required to establish a prima facie case is relatively low. It is not the same as having to establish that the complaint is likely to succeed; merely that facts have been presented that are of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination, or that there must be facts of ‘sufficient significance’ to raise a presumption of discrimination.

It is not sufficient to simply be a member of a protected group to render acts discriminatory, if for example no comparator exists, or the acts are transparently attributable to a non-discriminatory cause.

The complainant faces a number of other obstacles.

The respondent drew attention to the fact that the complaint under the Family Status ground was submitted to the WRC before the complainant gave birth to her first child, and she confirmed this in evidence, thereby rendering her complaint on that ground open to challenge.

Likewise, her references to alleged breaches of the Maternity Protection Act, 2004 are of no assistance to her as she did not make her complaint under that statute.

The respondent set out the process by which it agreed the selection process with the employee representatives for the collective redundancy.

The complainant did not challenge this. She referred to a Portuguese colleague who had not been selected for redundancy as suggestive of discrimination but provided no evidence that this fell outside the agreed selection criteria for doing so.

She also submitted, and this would be important if true, that other colleagues were assisted with administrative arrangements for interviews for alternative positions when she was not. This is the process the complainant would not participate in and which she made the central planks of her complaints.

At a superficial level this seemed to imply that the complainant had been less favourably treated as she was not facilitated with any such assistance. The clear implication was that she was being required to complete for the alternative positions while others were not or were being assisted by the respondent management to bypass this requirement.

It turns out that this is not true.

It was only in response to a direct question from the Adjudicator that it emerged that all those being facilitated with assistance in the interview process had applied to be considered; the problem for the complainant is that she refuses to even apply.

So, it turns out that what was never much more in the complaint than an innuendo of unfair treatment is no such thing; had Ms Danilova applied to be considered it is likely that she would have been given the same assistance.

There are no facts from which it may be inferred that the complainant may have been the subject of less favourable treatment on either of the grounds she advances (and leaving aside for now whether the family status complaint is within jurisdiction at all).

She failed to make out any case that the agreed redundancy selection criteria had the effect of discriminating against her, or to adduce any facts from which it might be inferred.

The complainant is entirely the author of her own misfortune due to her obdurate refusal to apply for alternative positions (which, on the day of the hearing remained open to her). She may not have been successful, but that is a risk at least some of her colleagues were prepared to take.

Her reasons for not doing so were weak and unconvincing; that the respondent was not in some way a safe place for her.

In any event, for the reasons set out above her complaint fails.

For the reasons set out above neither of the complaints, CA-00066706-001 or 002 are upheld and they do not succeed.

Redundancy