Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Sonia  Cassius-Clay

Global Professional Consultants

Representatives

Self-represented

Mary Seery Kearney BL, instructed by HR Brief Ltd

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-00075519-001

17/09/2025

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

CA-00075519-002

17/09/2025

The complainant made two complaints that she was discriminated against on race grounds in not getting a job, and that she was victimised under the Employment Equality Act.

The respondent denies the claims in full.

At the commencement of the hearing, it was clarified that there are two complaints under the Employment Equality Act. These are discrimination on the race ground, and penalisation. Although the complainant sought to raise a penalisation complaint under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, this complaint was not before me. No complaint was referred to the WRC.

Summary of Ms. Cassius-Clay’s Evidence

The complainant outlined the circumstances under which she contacted the respondent when she was searching for a job in or around February 2025. She found the respondent staff very helpful initially and several interviews were arranged. After she was called back for a second interview with a prospective employer, she was verbally offered a job by a client company of the respondent. The respondent then assisted in requesting a contract of employment to issue to her. The prospective employer finally responded that due to restructuring the offer of employment was withdrawn. The respondent informed her of this. She said that there was contact between her prospective new employer and her existing employer which culminated in her existing employment being terminated. She claimed that there was collusion between the respondent and the prospective company in the way events unfolded. She added that Mr. O’Donoghue of the respondent had covertly attended the initial online interview with the prospective new employer.

She said that discrimination and penalisation due to her race continued when she received no further contact from the respondent on any further employment opportunities from 18th March 2025 onwards. She claimed this arose from a deep relationship between the respondent and the prospective new employer. She said she had been upfront at the earlier interviews with prospective employers as to why she was seeking a change of employment.

She said after she submitted complaints to the WRC, the respondent contacted Mr. Delaney who she had much earlier referred to them as he was seeking employment. She never received a finder fee after he obtained employment. She said that Mr. Delaney was contacted out of the blue by the respondent after she submitted her complaint to the WRC.

She said that she had not made a complaint to the respondent company prior to 18th March 2025, about what had transpired for her. Through her own efforts, she was able to get employment in May 2025.

Under cross-examination by Ms. Seery Kearney, it was put to her that Mr. O’Donohoe will give evidence that he did not attend the online interview. She replied that she understood he was present. It was put to her that evidence would be given that the finder fee was not covered as Mr. Delaney did not state at the outset who had referred him and this was necessary to obtain the reward.

It was put to her that the respondent was not culpable for what happened as the respondent’s role is to find employment opportunities and are paid when employment is obtained. She replied that the respondent company should have guidelines for their clients to prevent unauthorised sharing of information.

It was put to her that evidence would be given that the respondent was unaware she lost her job. She replied there was no contact as she had not worked out herself what had happened. It was put to her that the respondent continued to seek other opportunities. She replied that this was before 18th March 2025 and she was not made aware of any further efforts.

It was put to her that she had never alleged discrimination with the respondent. She replied that she was not contacted by the company afterwards and this was penalisation and that the respondent was aware of her skin colour due to online photos.

Summary of Mr. Delaney’s Evidence

Mr. Delaney said he obtained a job through the respondent quite quickly due to the efforts of the respondent staff. He said he had raised the finder fee and the entitlement was disputed.

After being placed in a job, he found it unprofessional that he was only later asked for his qualifications.

He later received a general email shot advertising the finder fee and he replied that it was a sham as the fee for him was not paid. He said it was very strange then that he was contacted in early January 2026 by the Managing Director about the fee. He was informed that the referral fee would be paid and yet it is still not paid.

Under cross-examination, he was how he obtained his current job, the request for his qualifications and the finder fee. He replied with a detailed account of what transpired on his contacts with the respondent.

Complainant Closing Statement

The complainant outlined that there was no duty of care shown to her. She had suffered a loss of employment, and there was no follow-up from the respondent company after March 2025. She concluded that the failure to pay the referral fee was also unfair treatment.

Summary of Mr. O’Donohoe’s Evidence

Mr. Donohoe outlined his role as Recruitment Consultant and his contacts with the complainant. He said a lot of work was done to set up interviews by way of opportunities. He said he never attends interviews although could be involved in setting up interviews. He explained how references are sought at offer stage and he was unaware of contacts by the prospective employer, around that time.

He said there was no further contact with the complainant after March 2025 as he had done all he could. He said the company always want to place applicants based on their skills set. This was done quickly for Mr. Delaney given his experience on project work. He said that both the complainant and Mr. Delaney were afforded the same process.

He outlined that the finder fee system was paid once the referral was confirmed on the initial contact. As he was unsure with Mr. Delaney’s issue, he raised it with his manager, and it was refused.

He explained why he contacted Mr. Delaney seeking his qualifications as this was to ensure the file was in order. When he received further contact from Mr. Delaney in December 2025 and he wanted to be removed from the mailing list, he referred this up the line. He said this was the reason Ms. Herlihy, as Managing Director was in contact with him.

Under cross-examination by Ms. Cassius-Clay, he was asked if he attended the online interview and why there was no further contact after March 2025. He replied that he did not attend the interview. He said the final call was in March 2025 and he had done all he could.

Summary of Mr. Hasson’s Evidence

Mr. Hasson outlined his role as Business Manager and his contacts with the complainant. He said he was on annual leave around this time although confirmed the job offer was made and then retracted by the client company in March 2025. Although he followed up with the client company, there was no response. He said he put the complainant forward for another position on 21st March 2025 although nothing came of this. He said everything was done for the complainant to get her into a job.

Under cross-examination, he was asked whether there was a discussion with the prospective employer that may have denied her the new employment and loss of current job. He denied having a discussion.

Summary of Ms. Herlihy’s Evidence

Ms. Herlihy said she was Managing Director, and outlined the countries the company operates in. She said they are paid only after employment is obtained. She said that the situation that arose for the complainant could not be condoned although the respondent company was not responsible. She said the company has a good reputation and would not collude with another company. She said she was satisfied with the efforts made by Mr. O’Donohoe and Mr. Hasson to find employment for the complainant.

She outlined the context of contacting Mr. Delaney as she was aware that he was dissatisfied with the handling of some issues. She was concerned about his reasons to be removed from the mailing list. Her contact was to ensure the respondent’s reputation was not tarnished. She outlined why there are certain rules for the finder fee. She said that ultimately it was decided to pay the fee. It had not been paid as confirmation of a current address was not forthcoming.

Under cross-examination, she was asked about the time lag in contacting Mr. Delaney and when it was decided to pay the finder fee. She outlined the reasons and timing of the contact and explained that the fee was being paid due to the strong representations from Mr. Delaney.

Respondent Closing Statement

Ms. Seery Kearney submitted that any unlawful use of data was not the responsibility of the respondent. She said the complaint was under employment equality, and there must be primary facts to establish that discriminatory treatment could have occurred. There was no nexus between the matters complained of and racial discrimination. She outlined that the respondent had made considerable efforts on her behalf to obtain interviews. Unfortunately, there was no written letter of offer or start date with the prospective employer although the respondent company took steps to get a contract. The comparator of Mr. Delaney was not like with like as he was highly qualified and had project experience and was easier to place. The issue of a finder fee for Mr. Delaney was not mentioned on the complaint form and was an attempt to link other issues to her complaint. As there was no complaint made on any equality issue to the respondent company, there could be no penalisation resulting from that, as per the legal test.

CA-00075519-001- Discrimination Complaint on Getting a Job

The Law

The Employment Equality Act promotes equality in the workplace and provides protection against discrimination. The Act prohibits discrimination on nine grounds, which includes race. Discrimination occurs when one person is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated. The employee must demonstrate that they have been treated less favourably than a comparator.

Section 85A (1) of the Act provides:

“Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.”

The Complainant is required to establish facts from which discrimination can be inferred. It is only when this burden is discharged that the burden shifts to the respondent to show that no unlawful discrimination took place. The Labour Court in Southern Health Board v Mitchell [2001] ELR 201 considered the extent of this evidential burden and held:

“The first requirement is that the claimant must establish facts from which it may be presumed that the principle of equal treatment has not been applied to them. This indicates that a claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, the primary facts on which they rely in seeking to raise a presumption of unlawful discrimination. It is only if these primary facts are established to the satisfaction of the Court, and they are regarded by the Court as being of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination, that the onus shifts to the respondent to prove that there is no infringement of the principle of equal treatment.”

Applying the Law to the Facts

Complainant’s Evidence

The complainant contends that she has been discriminated against on race grounds whilst seeking to access employment through the respondent. The testimony of the complainant did not provide facts from which it could be presumed that she was discriminated against on race grounds. There was no documentary evidence of adverse treatment due to her race. Although the complainant can rightly feel dissatisfied that a verbal job offer was withdrawn and her current employment was ended, there was insufficient evidence of primary facts which related this treatment to race.

The respondent witnesses gave testimony of their actions and engagements with the complainant. As primary facts of possible racial treatment were not established, the respondent witnesses did not have a prima facie case to rebut.

Finding

Having considered the complainant and witness testimony, I find that a prima facie case of discrimination has not been made out. Even though I heard evidence from the respondent witnesses, as a prima facie case has not been established, there is no requirement for any evidence to be rebutted. I decide the respondent has not discriminated against the complainant on race grounds.

I decide the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00075519-002- Victimisation Complaint

Section 74 (1) of the Act states-

“victimisation” shall be construed in accordance with subsection (2).

(2) For the purposes of this Part victimisation occurs where dismissal or other adverse treatment of an employee by his or her employer occurs as a reaction to —

(a) a complaint of discrimination made by the employee to the employer,

(b) any proceedings by a complainant,

(c) an employee having represented or otherwise supported a complainant,

(d) the work of an employee having been compared with that of another employee for any of the purposes of this Act or any enactment repealed by this Act,

(e) an employee having been a witness in any proceedings under this Act or the Equal Status Act 2000 or any such repealed enactment,

(f) an employee having opposed by lawful means an act which is unlawful under this Act or the said Act of 2000 or which was unlawful under any such repealed enactment, or

(g) an employee having given notice of an intention to take any of the actions mentioned in the preceding paragraphs

The test and case law for establishing whether there has been victimisation is set out below.

In Department of Defence v Barrett EDA 1017 the Labour Court stated-

“Protection against victimisation is a vital component in ensuring the effectiveness of anti-discrimination law. It enables those who considered themselves wronged by not being afforded equal treatment to raise complaints without fear of retribution. Article 11 of Directive 2000/78/EC requires Member States to introduce into their legal systems such “measures as are necessary to protect employees against dismissal or other adverse treatment by employers as a reaction to a complaint within the undertaking or to any legal proceedings aimed at enforcing compliance with the principle of equal treatment”

That obligation is given effect in Irish law by s.74(2) of the Acts. The definition of victimisation contained in that section contains essentially three ingredients. It requires that: -

1. The Complainant had taken action of a type referred to at s.74(2) of the Acts (a protected act),

2. The Complainant was subjected to adverse treatment by the Respondent, and,

3. The adverse treatment was in reaction to the protected action having been taken by the Complainant.

Finding

In testimony the complainant gave evidence that she did not make a complaint to the respondent company prior to March 2025. A prerequisite for a victimisation complaint is that a protected act was made as per section 74(2) of the Act. As there was no protected act, a complaint of victimisation cannot be made out.

I decide the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00075519-001- Discrimination Complaint on Getting a Job

I decide the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00075519-002- Victimisation Complaint

I decide the complaint is not well founded.

Discrimination, penalisation