Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Marion  Keaveney

Health Service Executive

Representatives

Self-Represented

Self-Represented

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-00068651-001

15/01/2025

The Complainant commenced employment in June 1992. At all relevant times, the Complainant’s role was described as that of “nurse”. The Complainant’s employment ended in March 2016.

On 15th January 2025, the Complainant referred the present complaint to the Commission. Herein, she alleged that the Respondent denied access to an internal payment scheme during a period of rehabilitation. While the Respondent indicated that they were willing to meet the complaint on its merits, they submitted that the complaint, as constituted, is unambigously out of time.

A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 10th October 2025. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.

Both parties issued submissions in advance of the hearing. Said submissions were expanded upon and contested in the course of the hearing.

Given the nature of the preliminary objection raised by the Respondent, the same will be considered in advance of the substantive matter.

By submission, the Complainant accepted that the present complaint was referred almost nine years following the ending of her employment with the Respondent. Notwithstanding the same, she submitted that the matter should be considered in circumstances whereby alternative ligation against the present Respondent finalised in March 2022. The Complainant further submitted that during the process of finalising said litigation, she discovered that a crucial document had not been internally communicated within the Respondent at the relevant time. Finally, the Complainant submitted that part of the delay arose due to ongoing medical issues.

By response, the Respondent stated that the present complaint is clearly and unambiguously out of time. In this regard they submitted that even with an extension of the relevant period in accordance with the legislation, the matter would remain out of time by several years.

Regarding the present complaint, the Complainant has alleged that the Respondent discriminated against her in the course of her employment. In this regard, the Complainant accepted that the employment in question ended over eight years previous, and that that alleged discriminatory event itself occurred some years prior to the ended of her employment.

In this regard, Section 77(5)(a) provides that,

“…a claim for redress in respect of discrimination or victimisation may not be referred under this section after the end of the period of 6 months from the date of occurrence of the discrimination or victimisation to which the case relates or, as the case may be, the date of its most recent occurrence.”

Thereafter, Section 77(5)(b) of the Acts provides that,

“On application by a complainant the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission or Circuit Court, as the case may be, may, for reasonable cause, direct that in relation to the complainant paragraph (a) shall have effect as if for the reference to a period of 6 months there were substituted a reference to such period not exceeding 12 months as is specified in the direction and where such a direction is given, this part shall have effect accordingly.”

In consideration of the provisions cited above, the Complainant may pursue an allegation of discrimination that occurred within six months or the date of referral or, in certain circumstances, up to twelve months previously. In the present matter, it is common case that the alleged discriminatory conduct occurred many years ago, and that the parties have not enjoyed an employment relationship for over eight years prior to the referral. In these circumstances, and while I do have sympathy for the issues experienced by the Complainant, it is apparent that the matter is simply out of time for the purposes of the impleaded Act.

I find that the Respondent did not discriminate against the Complainant within the cognisable period.

Statute Barred, Date of Discrimination