Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Samantha  Morrissey

Boyne Community School

Representatives

Thea Kennedy, B.L. instructed by  Crushell & Co

Mark Curran, BL, instructed by Mason Hayes & Curran

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00072630-001

20/06/2025

The Complainant is a qualified post-primary teacher.  She was employed on a Fixed-term contract from 01/09/2024 until 31/08/2025.  She submitted a complaint to the WRC on 20/06/2025 alleging that she was discriminated against by the Respondent on the gender ground contrary to the Employment Equality Acts, following the notification of her pregnancy. 

The Respondent submits that the complaint is not well-founded and denies that any discrimination occurred.  It contends that the Complainant’s Fixed-term contract expired on the agreed termination date and was not renewed because her services were no longer required.

The Complainant gave evidence on affirmation.  She outlined details of her career and her role with the Respondent.  She initially worked as an unqualified substitute teacher in 2021/2022 providing cover for a maternity leave post.  She subsequently obtained her teaching qualifications and commenced employment on a full-time fixed term basis for the academic year 01/09/2024 to 31/08/2025. 

Her qualifications include a degree, a Graduate MA in Education with Business Studies.  She also has qualifications in Additional Education Needs (AEN) and Special Education Needs (SEN). She worked a 22-hour teaching week and was working in the (AEN) department of the school.

The Complainant took on additional duties when requested on a voluntary and unpaid basis.

On 20/01/2025 she informed the Respondent of her pregnancy and a potential due date of 31/07/2025.  The Complainant deferred her application for a place on the Professional Diploma in Inclusive and Special Education course at this time. 

The Complainant gave evidence that she had a meeting with the Principal, Jean Ryan, on 09/04/2025 about a student related matter.  At the end of that meeting the Principal informed her that her hours were to be restructured and that there would be no role for her in the next academic year.  The Complainant gave evidence that she was told that her hours were needed for Guidance Counsellors and her hours would be transferred to them.  The Complainant gave evidence that she was upset at this development,  having worked in the school for three years.  She stated that she worked well with her colleagues.   It was the Complainant’s evidence that she would have expected to be invited to a meeting to specifically discuss this matter rather than be told at the end of a different kind of meeting.  She would have liked to have representation so that questions could be asked.

The Complainant gave evidence that it was her understanding that AEN hours could only be used for AEN purposes.  She was aware that two Guidance Counsellor roles were advertised and she was told that no one applied for them.  These roles were already funded if they were advertised and she does not accept the explanation that her AEN hours were to be moved to Guidance Counsellor roles.

The Complainant stated that she was upset and was unable to continue teaching that day so she went home and made a note of the conversation she had.  She contacted her trade union representative who subsequently made contact with the Principal.  As a result of this the Principal sent an email on 06/05/2025 stating that the AEN hours were to be allocated to the AEN department. 

The Complainant confirmed that she did not return to work after this following the recommendation and certification by her GP.

The Complainant stated that she was surprised at the email of 05/05/2025 as she was told on the 09/04/2025 that her hours were to be reassigned to Guidance Counsellors.  She was a core member of the AEN team and there was no reason for the hours to be restructured.  She wanted to remain dedicated to AEN work and there were other members of the team also on one year fixed-term contracts.

The Complainant also gave evidence in relation to her SPHE hours and her Business Studies teaching hours.

She confirmed that she was aware of the Respondent’s subsequent advertisements and she did not apply as the roles did not require Business Studies which was her subject area.

The Complainant gave evidence that as a result of this decision she was signed off work and was not capable of applying for jobs.  She was not available for a September 2025 start due to her maternity leave.  She has commenced applications recently and was interviewed.  The Complainant stated that she has a loss of one year’s salary and a loss of pay during maternity leave.  Her mental health during her pregnancy was affected and her household went from two salaries to one and this had financial implications.  Her confidence and enjoyment during the final months of her pregnancy were adversely affected as a result of these events.

Cross-Examination – the Complainant

The Complainant was cross-examined by Mr Curran, BL, on behalf of the Respondent.  It was put to the Complainant that her Level 5 AEN qualification is in fact an SEN qualification and not a teaching qualification.  The Complainant agreed.  It was also put to the complaint that her evidence was that she was an employee for three years but this was not accurate.  She was a Fixed-term employee for the academic year 2024/2025.   The Complainant stated that she commenced employment in 2021/2022 as a substitute teacher covering maternity leave and she had no contract for this.  During the 2023/2024 she worked in different schools. 

It was put to the Complainant that she did not have continuous employment for a three-year period with the Respondent.  She stated that she had two years with a break.  The Complainant confirmed that she was issued with a contract of employment for the academic year 2024/2025 and she signed it.  She agreed that this was a Fixed-term contract and she also agreed that she knew this prior to becoming pregnant.   It was put to the Complainant that her pregnancy did not change her contract and she agreed.  It was put to the Complainant that paragraph (iv) related to the fact that this was a Fixed-term contract and the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Acts did not apply and she agreed. 

It was put to the Complainant that the contract specifically stated that any information in relation to a permanent vacancy would be made by means of a general announcement at a staff meeting or through a notice board.  The Complainant stated that there was no announcement of a permanent role but she was aware that her contract was fixed-term.  It was put to the Complainant that the contract gave the Respondent the right to terminate the contract prior to the expiry date by giving one month’s notice but this did not happen.  The Complainant agreed and she also agreed that the Principal did not terminate her contract before its expiry date.   She agreed that the Principal had a right to terminate her contract.

It was put to the Complainant that she alleges that the Principal, Ms Ryan discriminated against her because of her pregnancy.  She agreed that was her complaint.  It was put to the Complainant that she told Ms Ryan in January 2025 about her pregnancy but Ms Ryan did not change anything about her contract.  The Complainant agreed that this was correct.

It was put to the Complainant Ms Ryan’s evidence will be that her teaching hours were organised to facilitate her going through the Droichead process which is the professional induction framework for newly qualified teachers.  The Complainant stated that she could not recall such a conversation but agreed that Ms Ryan would have consulted her in relation to this.

It was put to the Complainant that when Ms Ryan congratulated her on her pregnancy this was not prejudicial.  The Complainant stated that it would depend on the tone and she could not recall if a sarcastic tone was used.  She agreed that she had no recollection of Ms Ryan treating her negatively.

The Complainant was asked when she was treated differently by Ms Ryan.  She confirmed that it was at the meeting on 09/04/2025.  She confirmed that she was treated differently to others who were also on a Fixed-term contract.  It was put to the Complainant that she did not identify any person who was treated differently to her because she was pregnant.  She agreed that she did not.   The Complainant stated that it was her position that her hours were restructured as she was pregnant.

It was put to the Complainant that the Respondent is obliged to operate within the framework outlined in the Department of Education and Skills Circular number 0024/2015 which deals with the operation of fixed-term employment in primary and second level education.  She agreed.  It was put to the Complainant that part 6 of that circular states: “All first fixed-term contracts must be terminated at the end of the school year and if the employment is continuing for the following year, it must be automatically readvertised by the employer and a new recruitment process undertaken for the filling of the post for the second year.  Therefore, the employer must terminate the contract and cannot provide a new Fixed-term contract to any teacher unless it advertises and interviews first”. The key word in the first sentence is “if” the contract is to continue the following year.  The Complainant agreed that the circular stated that the post must be advertised and not automatically renewed.

It was put to the Complainant that if these hours were still required the post would still have to be readvertised and she agreed that was the process.   The Complainant also agreed that she stated that she would not be able to attend an interview if it was advertised as she was on sick leave from April to June 2025 and on Maternity leave from June until 31/08/2025.

It was put to the Complainant that she stated she wanted a representative at the meeting on 09/04/2025 and she confirmed that she would have liked to do so.  She also agreed that this was not a disciplinary meeting.  It was put to the Complainant that no other teacher who attended a similar meeting about their contract had representation and she stated that she was not aware of this but she was not given any opportunity to have a representative present.  It was put to the Complainant that Ms Ryan’s position is that her reasons for reassigning the hours are consistent.  The Complainant stated that she was told it was because of the Guidance Counsellor roles.  It was also put to the Complainant that Ms Ryan will give evidence that the Whole School Evaluation (WSE) recommended a restructuring of the AEN department.  The Complainant stated that this evaluation occurred prior to her commencing. 

The Complainant agreed that there was no mention of her pregnancy during her meeting with Ms Ryan on 09/04/2025.  She stated that she was not in a position to deny that Ms Ryan had similar conversations with other teachers who had the same contracts as her.

The Complainant confirmed that she received the letter of 11/04/2025 confirming that her contract would end and she agreed that this was a standard letter that was issued.  The Complainant also confirmed that she received a copy of the email sent by Ms Ryan to her trade union representative and this outlines the reasons why there would no longer be a role available for her in the following academic year. 

It was put to the Complainant that the recommendations arising from the WSE arose from meetings with the National Council for Special Education.  The Complainant confirmed that she would not be in a position to know this.

It was put to the Complainant that the letter sent by Ms Ryan to the Complainant’s solicitor was consistent with the letter sent to her trade union representative.  The Complainant stated that Ms Ryan’s position was not consistent as she told her on 09/04/2025 that the hours were to be assigned to Guidance Counsellors.  The Complainant stated that she made a note of the meeting after she went home.  In response to a question from the Adjudication Officer the Complainant confirmed that this note was not included in her submissions to the WRC.

The Complainant confirmed that she did not interview for any posts with the Respondent since her contract ended.  She confirmed that she first interviewed for other roles in January 2026 and she had other interviews in recent weeks.

It was put to the Complainant that Ms Ryan will say that everyone on the core AEN team was a permanent employee or had an AEN qualification.  The Complainant stated that she has an AEN qualification and she had informed Ms Ryan that she wanted to complete the graduate diploma.

It was also put to the Complainant that Ms Ryan will say that there was a surplus of teachers who could teach Business Studies. 

Re-direction:

Under redirection the Complainant was asked what her views were on the Respondent’s position that Ms Ryan’s position was consistent.  The Complainant stated that at the meeting on 09/04/2025 Ms Ryan clearly told her that the hours were to be used for Guidance Counsellors but in her email to the trade union she stated something else.

Evidence – Mr Aoghan Cooney:

Mr Aoghan Cooney gave evidence on oath on behalf of the Complainant.  He outlined that he is a teacher of Construction Studies at the school for the past seven years.  He is a AP1 holder and is a member of the middle management team.  He would liaise regularly with the school Principal and Deputy Principal.  Mr Cooney confirmed that the Complainant is his wife.

Mr Cooney gave evidence that on 09/04/2025 a colleague came into his class and told him that his wife was upset and in the car park.  He went out to her and she told him what had happened and he became concerned for her well-being.  He was annoyed because she was a loyal member of staff.  Mr Cooney stated that the Complainant told him that her hours were going to Guidance Counsellor roles.  He returned to his class and met the Deputy Principal who also told him that the Complainant’s hours were going to Guidance Counsellor roles.  He had a meeting with Ms Ryan and she told him that the hours were going to Guidance Counsellor roles.  Mr Cooney stated that he told Ms Ryan that this could not happen.  He stated that he found it hard to accept this decision and he was not happy personally and professionally.  There was no mention to him by the Deputy Principal about restructuring or changing roles.

Mr Cooney confirmed that the Deputy Principal told him that the Complainant’s hours were going to Guidance Counsellor roles and Ms Ryan said the exact same thing.  Mr Cooney stated that he would disagree that the school had a surplus of Business Studies teachers.  The Geography Teacher is currently teaching Business Studies and she was not on full-time hours prior to this.

Mr Cooney stated that he works closely with the core AEN team and nothing has changed on that team.  He confirmed that he is aware of the Department Circular 0064/2024.  He gave evidence that he is not aware of how the Complainant’s hours are now allocated but he was told by Ms Ryan and the Deputy Principal that they would be reassigned to Guidance Counsellor roles and he is aware that the business class hours have been assigned to other teachers.

Cross-Examination – Mr Aoghan Cooney:

Mr Cooney was cross-examined by Mr Curran, BL, on behalf of the Respondent.  He was asked if he is aware that it is the Principal who makes out the timetable.  He stated that it is done by the Deputy Principal under the guidance of the Principal.  He agreed that it is the Principal who allocates and controls hours.  He was asked if he is aware of how AEN hours are allocated and he confirmed that he was not aware but he does link with the AEN team as part of his role.  He agreed that there were certain significant elements that he was not aware of in relation to changes as he would not be told.

Mr Cooney was asked about his meeting with the Principal on 09/04/2025.  He was asked if there were any discussions in relation to the Complainant’s pregnancy.  He confirmed that he raised it at the meeting.  He outlined that he told the Principal that he was disappointed with the decision and he recalls being told that the hours were going to Guidance Counsellor and he regards this as the most significant part of that meeting.  He could not recall anything else as he was concerned about the health and welfare of the Complainant and his unborn child.  He confirmed that he left the meeting as he was annoyed and upset.

It was put to Mr Cooney that he said the decision was “sprung on him” but the Complainant confirmed in her evidence that she had a fixed-term contract so it should not have been a surprise that the end date was 31/08/2025.  Mr Cooney stated that he fails to understand how or why this decision was issued as a throwaway remark at the end of a meeting which was held for a different reason.

Re-direction:

Under re-direction Mr Cooney was asked what usually happened when a fixed-term contract ends.  He stated that he does not think that anyone else was met in the same way as the Complainant.  Any jobs to be filled are usually posted around Easter and people are interviewed during the last week of the school year.

Closing submission:

Ms Kennedy, BL, made a closing submission on behalf of the Complainant.  She noted:

·       The Complainant has established facts of significance from which discrimination can be inferred  

·       The Respondent did not renew or re-employ the Complainant after she informed them of her pregnancy

·       She was treated differently – she was told that her hours were gone at the end of a student related meeting.  Other employees were invited to a specific meeting in relation to their contracts of employment

·       The Complainant’s due date was 31/07/2025 and the manner in which she was told that she would no longer be required was abrupt

·       Mr Cooney was also told that the Complainant’s hours were going to be allocated to Guidance Counsellors

·       The Principal’s restructuring explanations were not reflective of the work the Complainant had done

·       The Complainant was the only person on a Fixed-term contract who was not re-employed

·       There is no issue in relation to a comparator – this is not required when the discrimination is pregnancy related

·       This complaint should be upheld and the Complainant compensated for her loss of income.

Evidence – Ms Jean Ryan:

Ms Jean Ryan gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent.  She gave evidence in relation to the composition of the school.  There are 1,008 pupils, 83 teachers and 8 Special Needs Assistants (SNA).  There is also an autism section in the school.

Ms Ryan confirmed that she has been a teacher for 26 years and was Deputy Principal from 2017 to 2020 and she was appointed Principal in November 2020.

Ms Ryan outlined the process involved in allocating hours in the school. She stated that every year the school received a whole-time equivalent (WTE) from the Department of Education and Skills.  This is usually received in February.  There are various stages involved.  She has to complete a form, referred to as FP1 which sends notice of their vacancies to the Department. The curriculum needs for the year ahead have then to be reviewed. 

In relation to the year in question, 2024/2025 Ms Ryan stated that she had a number of staff on career breaks and in job sharing roles and these would continue into the following year.  She has to consider the staff and subjects for the entire school.

In relation to the AEN there was a retirement that year and they had to look at the whole school evaluation.  The AEN department was based around two people as it had started from nothing.   There was an NCSE intervention which resulted in hours being assigned to vacant posts.  There was an AP1 role and a special needs co-ordinator.  Ms Ryan provided details of the 6-7 people assigned to the AEN department.

Ms Ryan gave evidence that the Complainant had a Level 5 Special Needs Assistance qualification and all other staff had the Diploma in Special Education qualification. 

Ms Ryan was asked if she made a conscious decision that the Complainant would not be part of the AEN team.  She stated that she had to consider the curriculum in line with the allocation.  The Complainant was allocated to the AEN team and she needed to complete the Droichead process as it is better if this could be done in her own school and so organised matters to facilitate the Complainant completing this process.  It was for this reason that she was given Business Studies hours to support her in this process.

Ms Ryan was asked about the Complainant’s evidence that she was allocating the SEN hours incorrectly.  She stated that she had to declare any vacancies to the Department.  The allocation for Guidance Counsellors was not increased to 4.2.

Ms Ryan confirmed that the Complainant made her aware of her pregnancy in January 2025.  She would always congratulate employees when they told her this news.  She would usually have approximately 2-3 employees taking maternity leave each year.  She does not recall anything else in relation to this conversation.

Ms Ryan was asked about the Complainant’s case against her that she discriminated against her due to her pregnancy and so would not have to deal with a maternity leave employee.  Ms Ryan stated that the Complainant was not treated any differently to any other employee.  All staff who were on fixed-term contracts were notified about the end date. 

Ms Ryan was asked about the Complainant’s allegation that she also treated another employee wrongly.  Ms Ryan clarified that this person was employed for one year.  She had a co-ordinator role and was not qualified.  She received a letter in relation to the ending of her contract.  This post was then advertised and the successful candidate was a male and qualified.  Ms Ryan gave evidence that she was not a member of the interview panel for that post.  

In response to a question from the Adjudication Officer Ms Ryan confirmed that the person mentioned by the Complainant did not take any case against the Respondent.

Ms Ryan outlined the typical process in relation to the ending of fixed-term contracts.  Employees are advised that the contract is ending and if the position is to be advertised.  Some employees often ask her in advance if there is any update in relation to their situation.

Ms Ryan confirmed that the meeting with the Complainant on 09/04/2025 was a follow up meeting in relation to a student situation.  The Complainant would have known that she would be speaking to her at some stage in relation to her contract so when she was in her office she told her as a matter of courtesy that her contract was ending.

Ms Ryan gave evidence that the Complainant was given Business Studies teaching hours for Droichead purposes.  There are 8 teachers who teach Business Studies and other subjects.  There was no need for a senior cycle teacher. 

Ms Ryan stated that for the September 2024/2025 Academic Year that she advertised for an English and Geography teacher.  There were no applicants with that combination so the person appointed to teach geography was also given Business Studies but their main subject was predominantly Geography which was what was required.

Ms Ryan confirmed that there was no mention or discussion of the Complainant’s pregnancy at the meeting on 09/04/2025.  The decision to tell her that her contract was ending and would not be advertised was not related to her pregnancy. 

The letter issued to the Complainant confirming this was the same as those sent to other employees.  This is a template letter from the ACCS. Ms Ryan confirmed that she has to tell employees when their contract is coming to an end and also tell them if there are any vacancies.  The same letter was sent to all employees who were in the same situation.

Ms Ryan was asked to comment on the Complainant’s position that she told her that the hours were being allocated to Guidance Counsellor roles.  Ms Ryan stated that this was a misunderstanding on the part of the Complainant and it may have arisen when she told the department that there are vacancies in the Guidance Counsellor roles. 

Ms Ryan gave evidence that she did not say to the Complainant that the hours were being taken up by the Guidance Counsellors and Ms Ryan stated that “at no point could I say it”.  Ms Ryan confirmed that she did mention restructuring but did not go into any details as the Complainant was upset.

Ms Ryan confirmed the contents of her email to the trade union. 

Ms Ryan was asked about Mr Cooney’s evidence that he was told by the Deputy Principal about vacancies.  Ms Ryan said that she does need to let the Department know about any vacancies as they could be in a position to redeploy someone.

Ms Ryan was asked about the Complainant’s position that she could have taught Economics.  Ms Ryan said that she was not aware and in any event the Complainant did not apply for any post. 

Ms Ryan confirmed that maternity leave would not be a barrier to anyone applying for a role.  Ms Ryan also confirmed that there was no job for the Complainant and the termination of her contract on the end date occurred exactly the same as any other employee on a Fixed-term contract.

Cross-Examination – Ms Jean Ryan:

Ms Ryan was cross-examined by Ms Kennedy, BL, on behalf of the Complainant. 

Ms Ryan confirmed that the Complainant told her about her pregnancy in January 2025. 

Ms Ryan was asked if she was aware that she was going to talk to the Complainant about her contract when she organised the student-related meeting on 09/04/2025.  Ms Ryan stated that she thought it was a good opportunity to talk to the Complainant while she was in the office. 

Ms Ryan confirmed that other staff came into the office and asked about their position.  Ms Ryan stated that she felt that it was a matter of professional courtesy to let the Complainant know the position as she was in her office.

It was put to Ms Ryan that the Complainant’s evidence is that she was told that the hours were going to Guidance Counsellors. Ms Ryan stated that the vacancies are recorded on what is referred to as the SP1 form.  She denied saying that the hours were going to Guidance Counsellors. 

It was put to Ms Ryan that the Guidance Counsellor roles were not filled in January.  Ms Ryan confirmed that the third Counsellor role was not filled. 

Ms Ryan was asked how the Complainant’s hours were allocated.  She stated that she had to look at the entire staff of 83 and decide accordingly. The Complainant was on an AEN contract for 22 hours. 

Ms Ryan confirmed that the Complainant got on well in the school, had no performance issues and took on additional roles in a voluntary capacity. Ms Ryan confirmed that the Complainant volunteered to take on the additional role following a conversation with her.  This was covering an AP2 role.

Ms Ryan was asked when the decision was made that the Complainant’s hours would no longer be available to her.  She confirmed that this would have occurred when she returned the SP1 form to the Department at the start of February. 

Ms Ryan also confirmed that she is responsible for the allocation of hours.  She was asked how she approaches this.  She outlined that she looks at the whole school picture, then she looks at staff changes, curriculum changes and see what hours are required. 

Ms Ryan confirmed that she also took the recommendations of the Whole School Evaluation into account when looking at the overall hours.

Ms Ryan was asked if the meeting on 09/04/2025 was arranged as a follow up meeting in relation to a student related issue.  She confirmed that it was. 

She was asked if the Complainant was given any advance notice that her hours would be discussed.  Ms Ryan stated that that would not be standard practice.  Some employees may approach her in advance but regardless of how the employee is told the standard letters are always issued. 

Ms Ryan confirmed that she disagreed with the Complainant’s evidence that she told her that the hours were going to Guidance Counsellors.  Ms Ryan stated that she notifies the Department of what vacancies are and there were Guidance Counsellors.

Ms Ryan was asked if she advertised for any AEN post.  She confirmed that she employed a teacher for another role and this person also had AEN qualifications.  She stated that there was no vacancy for AEN hours.

Ms Ryan confirmed that she heard Mr Cooney’s evidence and she was aware of the conversation he referred to.  Ms Ryan stated that the vacancies she notified the Department of were for Guidance Counsellors.   Ms Ryan said that it was important to note that she was not returning any vacancies for an AEN to the Department.

It was put to Ms Ryan that the Complainant’s evidence was that she was treated differently because of her pregnancy.  Ms Ryan stated that the Complainant’s pregnancy played no role in the ending of her contract and the hours were not reassigned to Guidance Counsellor roles. 

Ms Ryan was asked to clarify what the redeployment option was.  She stated that when she notifies the Department of vacancies they may be in a position to redeploy someone to fill that vacancy.

In relation to the AEN timetable for the year, Ms Ryan confirmed that a record is kept.  This includes the timetable and the record of hours but it is not shared. 

It was put to Ms Ryan that the Complainant stated that she was the only person who was not kept on.  Ms Ryan stated that the Complainant was not part of the core team.  Staff who had the relevant qualifications and had additional subjects were appointed.

It was put to Ms Ryan that there was nothing in the NSE evaluation to say that the Complainant’s role should not be renewed.  Ms Ryan stated that the NSE evaluation was done in the academic year 2023/2024. 

Ms Ryan also gave details about the AEN department.  One person was retiring; one person was successful in the Home/School liaison role so they had to build the team from the beginning.  

Ms Ryan confirmed that the Complainant was employed for 22 hours for AEN work.

It was put to Ms Ryan that the Complainant could not have applied for any of the posts advertised as she was on maternity leave.  Ms Ryan said that she disagreed and that she did appoint a teacher who was on maternity leave at the time she applied.  The maternity leave had no bearing on her appointment.  

It was put to Ms Ryan that the Complainant’s position is that she discriminated against her.  Ms Ryan stated that she disagreed.  She also disagreed that she treated the Complainant differently to any other employee who was on a Fixed-term contract.

Closing submission:

Mr Curran, BL, made a closing submission on behalf of the Respondent.  He noted the following:

·       The Complainant was contracted as a fixed-term employee

·       She reached the end of that contract and it expired

·       Her contract was in place before she became pregnant and it did not change thereafter

·       Her contract also ended in line with the Department of Education and Skills circular, 0064/2024

·       A post is only readvertised if the hours are deemed necessary

·       There is a process in place when a post is advertised.  It is not a formality that someone in the Complainant’s position to be automatically interviewed

·       The Complainant’s suggestion that Ms Ryan waited from January 2025 until April 2025 “in the long grass” to end her contract just makes no sense

·       Ms Ryan could have terminated the contract by giving one month’s notice if she so wished

·       There is no word, gesture or email discriminating against the Complainant due to her pregnancy

·       The Complainant knows that she was treated the same as any other employee in the same situation.

·       In the Kidon v Lidl Ireland Gmbh (ADJ-00033880) 2022, the WRC dismissed a claim on the basis that no comparator was identified.

·       The Complainant has not provided a comparator to ground her claim that she was treated less favourably due to her gender.

The Complainant’s case lacks credibility.  What started off as not being offered a job merged into a damaging allegation against Ms Ryan.  The Complainant was disappointed her contract ended and her correlation is confused with causation.  The Complainant has not provided any causal link as her contract was always due to end.

It is submitted on behalf of the Respondent that this case should be dismissed as it is without merit.

CA-00072630-001: The Complainant submitted a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 20/06/2025 alleging that she was discriminated against by the Respondent on the gender ground contrary to the Employment Equality Acts, following the notification of her pregnancy.  The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent’s decision not to renew her employment constituted discriminatory treatment.

The Respondent submits that the complaint is not well-founded and denies that any discrimination occurred.  It contends that the Complainant’s Fixed-term contract expired on its agreed termination date and was not renewed because her services were no longer required.

Section 6 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, states:

“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) that one is a woman and the other is a man (in this Act referred to as “the gender ground”),

(b) that they are of different civil status (in this Act referred to as “the civil status ground”),

(c) that one has family status and the other does not (in this Act referred to as “the family status ground”),

(d) that they are of different sexual orientation (in this Act referred to as “the sexual orientation ground”),

(e) that one has a different religious belief from the other, or that one has a religious belief and the other has not (in this Act referred to as “the religion ground”),

(f) that they are of different ages, but subject to subsection (3) (in this Act referred to as “the age ground”),

(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”),

(i) that one is a member of the Traveller community and the other is not (in this Act referred to as “the Traveller community ground”)”.

This complaint is brought pursuant to the Employment Equality Acts on the basis that the Complainant alleges she was subjected to discriminatory treatment on the gender ground arising from her pregnancy.

The Burden of Proof

The Equality Act 2004 inserts a new section, 85A, into the Employment Equality Acts 1998 – 2015.

“85A – (1) 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 effect of Section 85A above is to place the burden of proof in the first instance on a Complainant, to establish facts which, on an initial examination, lead to a presumption that discrimination has occurred.  Accordingly, the initial burden rested on the Complainant to establish primary facts from which discrimination on the gender ground, including discrimination arising from pregnancy, could be presumed. I note that a comparator is not required in cases alleging discrimination arising from pregnancy.

The Complainant provided the hearing with a substantial submission which provided a narrative of events since her initial employment for the 2021/2022 academic year up to the ending of her contract on 31/08/2025.

The explanation provided by the Labour Court in its decision on Arturs Valpeters v Melbury Developments [2010] 21 ELR 64, which addresses the onerous nature of the burden of proof is also helpful:

“This requires that the Complainant must first establish facts from which discrimination may be inferred.  What those facts are will vary from case to case and there is no closed category of facts which can be relied upon.  All that is required is that they be of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination.  However, they must be established as facts on credible evidence.  Mere speculations or assertions, unsupported by evidence, cannot be elevated to a factual basis upon which an inference of discrimination can be drawn.  Section 85A places the burden of proof fairly and squarely on the Complainant and the language of this provision admits of no exceptions to that evidential rule.”

In deciding whether the Complainant has discharged the burden of proof as set out in section 85A of the Act above, I must consider the totality of her evidence given at the hearing.  While the Complainant sought to link the non-renewal of her Fixed-term contract to the disclosure of her pregnancy, I am not satisfied that she established primary facts of sufficient weight to give rise to an inference of discrimination contrary to the principle of equal treatment.

Bolger, Bruton, Kimber; Employment Equality Law 2nd Ed. 2022 at para 2-207 commenting on Southern Health Board v Mitchell [2001] E.L.R. 201 noted:

“This test requires that facts relied upon by a Complainant must be proved by them to the satisfaction of the Tribunal or Court at the level of balance of probabilities and if proven, must be of sufficient significance as to raise an inference of discrimination. In the case before it, the Labour Court found, on the facts of the case, that the Complainant could not demonstrate superior qualifications and experience than the successful appointee and that she therefore failed to discharge the burden of proof that rested on her”.

In Cork City Council v McCarthy (2008) EDA0821 the Labour Court also stated:

“The type or range of facts which may be relied upon by a Complainant can vary significantly from case to case.  The law provides that the probative burden shifts where a Complainant proves facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination.  The language used indicates that where the primary facts alleged are proved it remains for the Court to decide if the inference or presumption contended for can properly be drawn from those facts.  This entails a consideration of the range of conclusions which may be appropriately drawn to explain a particular fact or a set of facts which are proved in evidence”.

The factual matrix is that the Complainant’s contract of employment commenced on 01/09/2024 and terminated on 31/08/2025.  This contract ended in accordance with the date specified.  The evidence before me indicates that the Complainant’s contract concluded on the expiry date specified in the contract and there was no evidence that the contractual term was shortened or otherwise altered following the notification of her pregnancy to the Respondent.

The contract noted “This is a Fixed-term contract and therefore the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977-2007 or any amendments thereto shall not apply to a dismissal consisting only of the expiry of the said term without it being renewed”. 

The Protection of Workers (Fixed-term Work) Act 2003 provides clear definitions for the purposes of employees engaged in fixed term work:  “Fixed-term employee” means a person having a contract of employment entered into directly with an employer where the end of the contract of employment concerned is determined by an objective condition such as arriving as a specific date, completing a specific task or the occurrence of a specific event …”

I am satisfied that the Complainant was a Fixed-term employee and her contract was for the period 01/09/2024 to 31/08/2025.  Her contract ended on the date specified and this did not change when she informed the Respondent about her pregnancy.

I am also satisfied that this contract complied with the provisions of the Department of Education and Skills, Circular 0024/2015 which states that “All first fixed-term contracts must be terminated at the end of the school year and if the employment is continuing for the following year, it must be automatically readvertised by the employer and a new recruitment process undertaken for the filling of the post for the second year.  Therefore, the employer must terminate the contract and cannot provide a new Fixed-term contract to any teacher unless it advertises and interviews first”.   

There was clear evidence that the curriculum needs for the 2025/2026 academic year had significantly different needs to the 2024/2025 academic year along with restructuring of the Additional Education Needs (AEN) department and as a result of this the hours which the Complainant was contracted for could be absorbed within the AEN department. In that context I prefer the evidence given by Ms Ryan in relation to the rationale given at the meeting on 09/04/2025 for not renewing the Complainant’s contract.

The mere expiry of a Fixed-term contract does not, of itself, exclude the possibility of discriminatory treatment.  I also accept that unfavourable treatment arising from pregnancy may constitute direct discrimination on the gender ground within the meaning of the Employment Equality Acts.  However, in the present case, I am not satisfied that the evidence established a sufficient factual nexus between the Complainant’s pregnancy and the Respondent’s decision not to renew the Fixed-term contract.

I find that this complaint is not well founded, and the Respondent, Boyne Community School, did not discriminate against the Complainant, Ms Samantha Morrissey.

Gender and pregnancy discrimination.