Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Clerical Officer

A Local Authority

Representatives

In person

Local Government Management Agency (LGMA)

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 86 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00068739-001

20/01/2025

The complaint was submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 20th January 2025. The complaint was submitted in accordance with Section 86 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, which addresses collective agreements. The issues raised in this complaint do not concern collective agreements. The issue to be addressed is the allegations of discrimination on the grounds of disability and nationality in respect of the complainant’s application for promotion within the employment where she was deemed ineligible based on the educational requirements of the posts in question.

Naming of the parties

As the complainant has provided details of a diagnosed disability and to protect her privacy in respect of that issue, I have decided to use my discretion and anonymise my decision in this complaint.

The respondent raised two preliminary points in relation to the complaint of discrimination

1.                Disability

The respondent outlined that it is now on notice that the complainant has ADHD, however it was not formally on notice of this disability until February 2025 which post-dates the lodging of the complaint to the WRC and is therefore outside the cognisable period of the complaint. The respondent further stated that in her application for the promotional post in question in August 2024, the complainant stated that she did not have a disability.

2.                Nationality

The respondent refutes that the complainant was discriminated against on the grounds of her nationality by virtue of the educational requirements for the posts in question. The respondent’s position is that the educational qualifications of those who are not educated in Ireland must be verified to show QQI equivalence with Irish qualifications. 

The complainant represented herself at the adjudication hearing and presented her case by summarising her written submissions. The complainant contends that she was discriminated against on the grounds of disability and nationality in respect of her application for promotion within the respondent organisation.  The complainant asserts that she is deemed ineligible as the application criteria of the respondent discriminates against people with a disability and discriminates against Irish nationals in respect of the required educational standards to apply for a promotional post. In response to the respondent’s preliminary points, the complainant stated as follows:

1.      Disability

The complainant acknowledge that she was not formally diagnosed with ADHD until February 2025 and stated that she could not answer yes on the promotion application form to having a disability prior to receiving a formal diagnosis.

2.      Nationality

The complainant stated she is discriminated against based on her nationality (Irish) as those educated in other countries such as the UK and  Northern Ireland would typically have to show results in less subjects (between three and five) and therefore would be treated more favourably than an Irish person in terms of showing equivalence to the Leaving Certificate or Leaving Certificate (Vocational) examination.

Redress

The complainant is seeking compensation in relation to the discriminatory treatment she received surrounding the promotion competition within the local authority. The complainant is also seeking an acknowledgement by the local authority that its interpretation of the educational requirements prevented the complainant from developing in her career. The complainant further seeks that the local authority provide transparency in relation to the equivalent qualification criteria and that candidates are provided with the relevant information in competition handbooks so they can accurately self-assess in respect of promotion applications. The complainant is also seeking that the local authority reviews its educational requirements so that promotion is more accessible to people with disabilities, especially ADHD.

The Applicable Law

Discrimination

Sections 6 (1) and (2) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 at relevant parts state:

6.(1) For the purposes of this Act and without prejudice to its provisions relating to discrimination occurring in particular circumstances discrimination shall be taken to occur where—

(a) a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as the "discriminatory grounds") which—

(i) exists,

(ii) existed but no longer exists,

(iii) may exist in the future, or

(iv) is imputed to the person concerned,

(b) a person who is associated with another person—

(i) is treated, by virtue of that association, less favourably than a person who is not so associated is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, and

(ii) similar treatment of that other person on any of the discriminatory grounds would, by virtue of paragraph (a), constitute discrimination.

(2) As between any 2 persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are—

(a) - (f) not relevant…… 

(g) that one is a person with a disability and the other either is not or is a person with a different disability (in this Act referred to as “the disability ground”),

(h) that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins (in this Act referred to as “the ground of race”),

Burden of Proof

Section 85A of the Employment Equality Act 1998 provides as follows:

85A (1) Where in any proceeding’s 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.

(2) This section is without prejudice to any other enactment or rule of law in relation to the burden of proof in any proceedings which may be more favourable to a complainant.

(3) Where, in any proceedings arising from a reference of a matter by the Authority to the F156[Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission] under section 85(1), facts are established by or on behalf of the Authority from which it may be presumed that an action or a failure mentioned in a paragraph of that provision has occurred, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.

(4) In this section "discrimination" includes—

(a) indirect discrimination,

(b) victimisation,

(c) harassment or sexual harassment,

(d) the inclusion in a collective agreement to which section 9 applies of a provision which, by virtue of that section, is null and void.

Conclusions

I have considered the position of both parties to this complaint. It was agreed at the adjudication hearing that either a decision would issue having considered the preliminary points or the hearing would be reconvened if necessary.

In relation to the disability ground, the complainant accepts that within the cognisable period of the complaint (21st July 2024 – 20th January 2025) the respondent was not formally on notice of a disability. It was further agreed that a disability had not been identified on the promotion application in August 2024. In circumstances where the respondent was not on notice of a disability and where no formal diagnosis was received until after the complaint had been lodged with the WRC, I find that the complainant has not established facts from which an inference of discrimination can be drawn within the cognisable period of the complaint.

In relation to the nationality/race ground, I note that the complainant alleges discrimination as those who are educated outside of the Republic of Ireland are treated more favourably as it is easier for them to show equivalent qualifications to the required Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI) standard. On this point I find that an Irish national could also be educated in another country and based on that reality, it is not the nationality of the person but rather the location of where they are educated that requires an equivalent standard be proven in respect of job applications. Apart from asserting it to be the case, the complainant has not provided any evidence that Irish nationals are treated less favourably by virtue of their nationality in respect of the application process.

In all the circumstances of this complaint and for the reasons stated, I find that the complainant has not established facts from which an inference of discrimination can be drawn. Accordingly, she has not made out a prima facie case of discrimination.

For the reasons above, I find that the complaint has not established a prima facie case of discrimination. Accordingly, the complaint is not well founded.

Prima facie discrimination