ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00059600

Parties:

Complaint:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  15/01/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015,   following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint  and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Background:

The Complainant was employed initially by the Respondent from April 2018 to September 2019 when she resigned from her employment.  This complaint is linked to a series of complaints submitted by the Complainant, alleging that she was discriminated against on the ground of disability in relation to access to employment, that she was discriminated against in 2 applications for employment when she was not provided with reasonable accommodation and that she was penalised for having made a protected disclosure when she was in the employment.

In accordance with Section 41(13) and (14) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 as amended I have decided, due to special circumstances, including the medical circumstances, to anonymise the decision.  

The Complainant submitted her complaint under the Equal Status Act 2000.  It was agreed by all parties on the day of the hearing to amend the referral to the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2021.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant made written and oral statements summarised as follows:

The written statement as contained in her complaint form is:

She stated that she was treated less favourably in relation to an April 2025 recruitment process after she disclosed her disabilities which are Autism and ADHD.

Despite openly disclosing her neurodivergence and providing documents in advance, she was assessed against norms that do not reflect neurodivergent communication styles.  Despite asking to bring in a communication aid that showed her ability for the job (including months of management meetings about her performance) she was penalised for not coming up with different examples on the spot, which is difficult for people with her disabilities. They penalised her for "going off on a tangent" without any recognition that this is a known trait of neurodivergence, particularly ADHD and autism. She highlighted that she needed a communication aid because of this issue. She had a proven track record of being able to perform in the job, as she had documents showing she was top of the sales team in 2019.  To judge her on her ability to answer competency based questions which are highly confusing for autistic persons is extremely unfair, considering she scored as outstanding in all her training and management reports.

The Respondent applied rigid, standardised scoring criteria during the interview which, while appearing neutral, placed her at a particular disadvantage as a neurodivergent candidate. These included requirements for concise responses, "balanced" conflict resolution and KPI-focused thinking. No adjustment was made to the competency framework to reflect inclusive or neurodivergent-friendly approaches, despite the Respondent being on notice of her disability following a previous complaint in 2024. She believes the accommodations provided were a tick box exercise and they failed to show how their systems and processes support neurodivergent applicants and view them through the lens of their disabilities, looking at them in a positive way instead of looking for reasons to mark them down based on neurotypical standards.

Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation

Although she disclosed her disabilities and submitted supporting documentation in advance, the Respondent failed to make meaningful accommodations to the interview process. They provided only surface-level adjustments (e.g. printing her materials, allowing slightly more time), but did not adapt the interview format, scoring criteria or panel expectations in line with their obligations. This failure fundamentally undermined her ability to perform. If she did not have evidence of her suitability, this kind of discrimination would be impossible to prove. However, she is over-qualified at a level above the standard required.   She had raised issues in 2024 of discrimination and other failures, which the Respondent found themselves to be answerable for in an internal investigation. The systems and processes in place need to be examined. She states that she can now not apply for a job there for two years. 

Victimisation

The Complainant previously submitted a complaint in relation to a 2024 interview, which was partially upheld in an internal investigation. She believes that her involvement in that complaint negatively influenced how she was perceived in the 2025 process. Despite being on notice of their failings, the Respondent’s conduct during the second interview reflected continued bias, an overly critical lens, and a lack of genuine corrective action amounting to less favourable treatment for having asserted her rights.

The Complainant gave evidence by affirmation.   She outlined her criticisms of the selection process in that she was not given a proper opportunity to express herself in interview, and she was prevented from submitting important documents which showed her excellent performance when she was in the role some years before.  She was told at interview that these examples were not relevant, she was described in feedback as being off the point.  She contended that she had a pre-interview call with HR in which she disclosed her disability and she contends that this was not taken into account and was a failure on the Respondent’s part to provide her with reasonable accommodation.  She further states that she was penalised for having been associated with a protected disclosure while she was in the employment and that she was told she could not reapply (for the 2025 vacancy) while there was an active complaint. 

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent made a consolidated written submission, encompassing all complaints made by the Complainant.

In summary, the submission made is as follows:

The Complainant has instituted three complaints under the Employment Equality Acts 1998- 2021 and the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 (as amended) (the consolidated versions being the “Employment Equality Act” and the “Protected Disclosures Act”) against the Respondent.

Specific complaints

In Specific Complaint CA-00068117-001, the Complainant alleges that during the recruitment process in July/ August 2024, no reasonable accommodations were provided to her and there was procedural unfairness. The Complainant alleges that there was a delay in providing written communication to her relating to her interview notes (through her DSAR). The Complainant further alleges that after raising her concerns about recruitment process, she was victimised for her complaints.

In Specific Complaint CA-00068890-001, the Complainant alleges that she was penalised for making a protected disclosure under the Protected Disclosures Act. The Complainant alleges that she had been penalised for her association with an alleged protected disclosure during her employment and this penalisation influenced her treatment during the recruitment process.

In Specific Complaint CA-00072554-001, the Complainant alleges the following:

(a) That she was treated less favourably by the Respondent during a recruitment process in April/May 2025 based on her disabilities;

(b) That she was penalised for having a disability and subsequently directly and indirectly discriminated against under the Employment Equality Acts;

(c) That the Respondent failed to provide reasonable accommodations to the interview process; and

(d) That she was victimised for previously raising a complaint.

The Respondent wholly denies all of the assertions which have been made by or on behalf of the Complainant to the effect that the Respondent has acted wrongfully or in breach of statutory duty. Insofar as each and every such assertion made is not specifically addressed in this submission, same is in no way to be taken as an acceptance by the Respondent of the truth or accuracy thereof.

Preliminary Application

The Respondent made a preliminary application that the hearing should be heard in private or at the very least the publication of the decision should have the parties anonymised and that no servant or agent of the Respondent should be identifiable from the decision that issues.                                     ADJ-00025149 A Teacher v A Board of Management was cited to support the application.

The Complainant is a former employee who resigned from her role in the Respondent on 13 September 2019 of her own accord (resignation email provided). She had been an employee from 30 April 2018 until she resigned on 13 September 2019. The Complainant reapplied to the Respondent, interviewed for a role on 2 August 2024 (the “2024 Interview”) and was unsuccessful. At some point prior to this interview, but after her employment with the Respondent had ended the Complainant was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (“ASD”) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”) (collectively her “Disabilities”). The 2024 Interview process is the subject of the first two complaints, where the Complainant is alleging discrimination. The Complainant also alleges she made a protected disclosure to the Respondent and was penalised for this. The Complainant claims that she was penalised in 2019 resulting in her leaving her employment (which is not the subject of these complaints) and that her failure at interview in 2024 and subsequent interview in 2025 (the “2025 Interview”) forms part of the penalisation she is claiming to be suffering. The Complainant re-interviewed for a role on the 14 May 2025 and was unsuccessful. This is the subject of her third complaint.

Alleged Protected Disclosure 2019

The Complaint has contended that due to her association with an alleged protected disclosure which was raised in 2019 by a colleague by way of email she has been penalised constantly by the Respondent. It is the Complainant’s position that this penalisation led to her leaving her employment and the ongoing penalisation is why she is not successful at interview with the Respondent. From the Respondent’s perspective, in 2019 there were no issues with the Complainant, and her departure was on good terms as outlined in her resignation email. Furthermore, the Complainant outlined to Mr F – a Talent Acquisition Manager in the Respondent’s HR department, on 22 August 2024 that the reason she left the role was that she found it difficult to organise lifts to and from the Respondent’s offices in Kilkenny. There was no reference to any alleged protected disclosure by the Complainant either in 2018 or in 2024. Only in 2025 did the Complainant first contend that she had raised a protected disclosure and was being penalised for doing so. A full investigation has been made by the Respondent into this allegation, wherein a number of her colleagues were interviewed. The outcome of that investigation found that there was no evidence of penalisation and actually noted several positive interactions between the Complainant’s relationship and personnel alleged to have been involved in penalisation during the relevant period (including where the Complainant nominated her colleagues for “team of the year” at an award ceremony. It is the Respondent’s position that no protected disclosure under the Protected Disclosures Act was ever made by the Complainant or associated with the Complainant. For the avoidance of doubt, no penalisation has occurred or is occurring. The Respondent has a dedicated “Speak Up Policy” which has been put in place in order for employees to make reports  - this was not utilised by the Complainant at any time during her employment up to her resignation in 2019. It is wholly unsatisfactory and impermissible for the Complainant to seek to rely upon alleged events from 2018, which are in any event long outside the cognisable period in respect of a claim presented to the WRC.

The 2024 Interview

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from 2018 to 2019, leaving of her own accord. The Complainant reapplied to the Respondent on two occasions and alleges that she was subject to disability discrimination and victimisation during the recruitment process.

The Complainant applied for the role of Consumer Sales Advisor and was called for the 2024 Interview on 2 August 2024. The 2024 Interview panel consisted of Ms K, a Recruitment Specialist  and Mr O, a Contact Centre Team Leader and one of the hiring managers for the open position.

During the 2024 Interview process, which took place between July and August 2024 the Complainant alleges that she was treated less favourably during the recruitment process because of her disclosed Disabilities of Autism and ADHD. The Complainant alleges that there was a refusal to accommodate her disclosed Disabilities. It is the Respondent’s position that Ms K was unaware of her diagnosis and that it was only at the interview itself that Ms. K first became aware of any disability, as a result of the Complainant saying this at the interview.

It is the Complainant’s position that she had a long pre-interview call with Ms K. However, this is completely denied by Ms K. who will give evidence to the effect that a pre-screening call took place with the Complainant on 25 July 2024. During this call the Complainant and Ms K discussed working hours, training period, shift patterns, office-based work during the first 3 months of employment, targets, fast paced environment, hybrid working, the nature of the role. Ms K did not have a conversation with the Complainant in advance of the 2024 Interview regarding the Complainant’s Disabilities or any reasonable accommodations that the Complainant may have needed. According to Ms K, to “the best of my memory, she [the Complainant] didn’t make me aware [of the Complainant’s Disabilities] until we were in the interview.” (from interview notes provided). Further, it was not apparent to Ms K during the interview that any accommodations for the Complainant were required.

The Complainant has alleged that she submitted a number of documents to Ms K in advance of the interview. Within this documentation (which was quite voluminous) there was a reference to the Complainant’s Disabilities and diagnosis that had occurred since the Complainant left her employment with the Respondent in 2019. Ms K acknowledges and agrees that she did receive this documentation in advance of the interview on 1 August 2024, which mostly contained documents from her time in the Respondent up to 2019 with compliments for the Complainant, Ms K did not review the material as, in order to give all candidates an equal opportunity at interview, Ms K intended to rely on the candidates’ performances at interview rather than on supplementary material (interview notes provided). For the avoidance of any doubt, Ms. K did not become aware of the Complainant being under any disability until the interview itself on 2 August 2024.

Ms K was accompanied in the 2024 Interview by her colleague Mr O Contact Centre Team Leader, who was the hiring manager for the open position. Mr O was a former colleague of the Complainant, and they were friends who remained in contact through Facebook Messenger up to 1 June 2020. On 26 June 2024, after receiving the call for interview, the Complainant messaged Mr O to inform him of same. As part of these messages to Mr O the Complainant informed him that she “had been diagnosed as autistic with ADHD”.

It is the Respondent’s position, that although Mr O was made aware in advance of the 2024 Interview of the Complainant’s Disabilities, he was informed in his personal capacity. It was not for Mr O to inform the Respondent of a prospective employee’s personal medical data, particularly since as far as he was aware that prospective employee had not informed the Respondent herself.

The Respondent respectfully submits that the alleged failure to provide the reasonable accommodation in terms of acceding to the requests made by the Complainant during the interview was not discriminatory.  Ultimately the Complainant was unsuccessful at the 2024 Interview.

After receiving the results of her interview, the Complainant sent a number of emails to Ms K requesting feedback and explanations over and above what the Respondent would normally provide (emails provided). The matter was escalated to Mr F, who began an open dialogue with the Complainant. Mr F and the Complainant had an informal call on 22 August 2024 (notes from this call provided). The aim of this call was to support the Complainant and reflect with her on how the interview had been carried out, using a standard competency-based process.

The Complainant continued to make persistent contact with a number of employees within the Respondent over Facebook and by email (for example to Mr. O, Mr. F and Ms. K ). Unfortunately, none of these employees could assist her. The Complainant, growing frustrated as she perceived there to be a lack of progress by the Respondent to institute a proper investigation into her interview process submitted a DSAR. The DSAR was dealt with in line with the Respondent’s Data Protection policy (provided). The Respondent submits that there were delays in responding to this DSAR due to the nature of the request and the large volume of data associated with the Complainant.

Internal Investigation

Matters escalated further when the Complainant submitted a document of complaints to the Respondent on 28 January 2025, as well as Complaints to the WRC. On foot of the complaints raised by the Complainant regarding her interview process, alleged discrimination, subsequent DSAR issues, and alleged penalisation the Respondent decided to institute an internal investigation in line with its Respect at Work Policy. The Complainant was informed that an investigation was being carried out, but this was an internal investigation only.

The investigation was carried out by Ms D, the Respondent’s HR People Partner, and took a number of months to finalise due to the large number of people to be interviewed and range of allegations raised by the Complainant (redacted report provided). While the investigation did not uphold any finding of discrimination, the report made a number of important recommendations, which focus on improving the Respondent’s interview practices. For example, the report recommends that interviewers should proactively ask neurodivergent candidates about needed accommodations, consider and document any requests, and review any supporting materials in advance. Moreover, the report recommends that teams must promptly act on candidate information requests, notify the data protection team, provide clear guidance for DSARs, address any inappropriate concerns in line with internal policies, and maintain clear procedures specifying when and within what timeframe candidates may re-interview. The Respondent has implemented these practices, demonstrating that it seeks to go above and beyond the required legal standards in accommodating any employees or candidates with a disability.

The report was shared in its redacted form on 5 June 2025. The redactions contained within the report were inserted to remove references to third parties, as well as the recommendations for the Respondent moving forward. The recommendations and the third-party data were not relevant nor was the Complainant entitled to receive same, and this is why it was redacted.

The Complainant at some point after receiving the redacted report fed the report into an AI chatbot and believed the chatbot had uncovered the redactions. By way of correspondence from the Respondent’s solicitor it was confirmed to the Complainant that the AI chatbot had not uncovered the redactions and these were what were referred to as AI hallucinations. Despite the assurances provided by the Respondent’s solicitor the Complainant became extremely upset and felt she was having a “nervous breakdown” due to the supposed uncovered redactions. It remains the Respondent’s belief that the AI chatbot hallucinated the uncovered redactions.

The 2025 Interview

Separately to the above, the Complainant re-applied for the role of Customer Engagement Advisor. The Complainant was called for interview on 13 May 2025. The interview panel consisted of Mr K, Customer Care Manager and Ms S, People Partner.

Supplementary documentation was provided for the Complainant prior to her arrival, and which she was allowed to refer to during the interview. A significant amount of time was provided to the Complainant, granting approximately an additional 30 minutes to the usual time allowed. Many of the questions were rephrased to ensure maximum clarity was provide and where appropriate, the interviewers redirected the Complainant back towards the original question asked. The Complainant was questioned further to ensure all relevant insights into her experience were attained and was provided with clear guidance on when it was appropriate to move on from a question. The scoring she received reflect that her skills do not meet the minimum required for the role. The Complainant was informed that the standard could be achieved in the future with further developments and refinement within key areas.

The Complainant failed to make any strong links of the relevance of her experience to the role and how it would benefit her in the position. Ultimately, the Complainant was unsuccessful in her application. The interviewers provided extensive feedback to the Complainant, as requested by her.

Outline of the Respondent’s Legal Arguments

The Respondent’s legal arguments included relevant sections of the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2018 – Section 6 (1) (definitions) and 85A (burden of proof).   Case law in relation to the burden of proof included:

Rotunda Hospital v Gleeson [DDE003/2000] and Melbury Developments Ltd v Valpeters [2010] ELR 64.  It is submitted that the Complainant has not discharged the burden of proof that rests upon her to establish that discrimination occurred.

Consistently throughout the recruitment process, it was the Complainant’s position that the Respondent treated her less favourably resulting in discrimination. This was not discrimination, as will be brought forward to the WRC by witness evidence. The Internal Investigation Outcome Report conveys that there was no evidence to show that the Complainant asked for accommodations to be made for her before or during the interview process. The Investigation Outcome Report provided no evidence to confirm that the Complainant’s interview was not assessed fairly. The scoring criteria was applied consistently and the members on the interview panel were impartial. The purpose of having two people on the interview panel is to ensure fair and objective scoring is applied. Accordingly, the Respondent's position is that the Complainant was treated fairly during the recruitment process, and in no way was the fact of her disability weighed against her in the decision process. As mentioned above, the interviewers found that the Complainant did not adequately answer the questions and did not demonstrate familiarity with the technical skills necessary for the position. The Respondent submits that the interview process was fair, balanced and considered.

Victimisation under the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015

Section 74 of the Employment Equality Acts sets out victimisation in the following terms:

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

(2) For the purposes of this part, victimisation occurs where the dismissal or other penalisation of the complainant was solely or mainly occasioned by the complainant having, in good faith-

• (a) sought redress under this Act or any enactment repealed by this Act for discrimination or for a failure to comply with an equal remuneration term or an equality clause (or a similar term or clause under any such repealed enactment),
• (b) opposed by lawful means an act which is unlawful under this Act, or which was unlawful under any such repealed enactment,
• (c) given evidence in any criminal or other proceedings under this Act or any such repealed enactment, or
• (d) given notice of an intention to do anything within paragraphs (a) to (c).”

It is the Complainant's position that she has been victimised under the Employment Equality Acts for claiming that she was discriminated unfairly against during the recruitment process. Moreover, it is the Complainant's position that she has been victimised under the Employment Equality Acts for raising concerns in relation to the alleged failure to reasonably accommodate her disability.

Specifically, the Complainant alleges the same role originally applied for was denied to her when an individual (who had been successful) dropped out of its training element; that she was discouraged from raising a DSAR; and that the Respondent’s engagement with her – characterised as obstructive and with delay – all constitute acts of victimisation.

It is submitted that this is not the case. In fact, as the further interview which took place in 2025 demonstrates, the Respondent was proactive in respect of the Complainant’s disability and took steps to accommodate the Complainant during that process. It is the Respondent’s case (and will be set out further in evidence), that it has communicated fulsomely with the Complainant, that any period of delay was necessitated by the Respondent’s desire to be as comprehensive as possible in addressing the Complainant’s requests, and that there is no causal nexus between the Complainant having raised concerns and the fact that she was not subsequently placed in the role or any alleged attitude by the Respondent towards a DSAR.

Additionally, the Complainant has noted that she has been victimised with the meaning of the Employment Equality Acts for having given feedback to a colleague on an email sent in March 2019 where that colleague requested additional support arising out of the colleague’s feelings of stress.

The Respondent submits that this incident in 2019 simply does not engage the Employment Equality Acts, as it does not involve any individual with a protected characteristic; moreover, the incident has no causal nexus with the Complainant’s lack of success at interview.

It is for the Complainant to evidence the causation between the incidents complained of and the fact of her having raised concerns regarding a protected status. Since this has not been done, the Complainant cannot show that the alleged penalisation occurred wholly or mainly by the complaint for having committed the acts described above. Therefore, the Respondent submits that no victimisation under the act could have occurred.

It is submitted that the Complainant  did not suffer any detrimental treatment for raising any concern.

Conclusion

The Complainant alleges that she was refused employment for reasons related to her disability. This allegation is wholly unfounded. The Respondent does not discriminate against their employees based on their disabilities or otherwise. The Respondent is an equal opportunities service. The Respondent rejects that any protected disclosure was made by the Complainant. The Respondent rejects that the Complainant was victimised or penalised in any way. The reasons for not employing the Complainant are not connected to her disability or any alleged protected disclosures that had previously been made.

For the reasons expressed above, it is submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the Complainant’s complaints should be dismissed in their entirety.

Evidence in relation to the 2025 interview

Evidence was given by affirmation from the Customer Care Manager Mr K who was part of the interview panel who interviewed the Complainant on 13 May 2025.  He stated that he received an extensive tranche of documents from the Complainant on the day before the interview.  He printed out the documents and he confirmed that the Complainant could absolutely refer to the documents except where they referred to data which could be in breach of GDPR.  He did make it clear to the Complainant that some of the information may not be entirely up to date and that the outcome of the interview would not be based on her documents, but on her interview as a whole.  He confirmed that the time allotted to the Complainant as interviewee was significantly extended in comparison to other candidates.  He stated that there was a huge amount of rephrasing and redirecting questions and this, in his view constituted reasonable accommodation.  The Complainant did not specifically request reasonable accommodation except in requesting that some questions be repeated and in that regard, this was facilitated.  The Complainant was a good candidate but did not reach the required threshold for employment and this had nothing to do with neurodivergence.  The witness himself had previous experience of dealing with additional needs pupils.  He also stated that the Respondent Company has many neurodivergent and diverse employees.    

Findings and Conclusions:

CA-00072554-001                             Employment Equality Acts 1998-2021

This complaint was received on 18 June 2025.  It relates to the allegation of discrimination made by the Complainant in relation to an interview on 14 May 2025 “the 2025 interview” when she was unsuccessful in securing employment.  The complaint is that she was discriminated against on ground of disability in relation to access to employment, that she was not provided with reasonable accommodation in relation to her disability and that she was victimised for having brought complaints against the Respondent.

As stated, the Complainant had a number of related complaints concerning interviews in 2024 and 2025.  Both parties referred to many elements of the process held in both years and the 2024 interview is the subject of a separate decision.

In this case, the central issue concerns the “2025 interview” and it is to that I concentrate on my findings, conclusion and decision.

The applicable law

Section 6 (1) of the Act states:

“(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..

Section 6 (2) (g) states:

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

(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”).

In this case, the existence of the neurodivergent condition of the Complainant is not in dispute.  The Complainant contends that she was discriminated against and treated less favourably than a person who does not have the same disability.

Burden of Proof

Section 85A of the Employment Equality Acts sets out the burden of proof which applies in a claim of discrimination. It requires the Complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to her.   If she succeeds in doing so, then, and only then, is it for the Respondent to prove the contrary. The Labour Court has held consistently that the facts from which the occurrence of discrimination may be inferred must be of “sufficient significance” before a prima facie case is established and the burden of proof shifts to the Respondent.   In deciding on this complaint, therefore, I must first consider whether the existence of a prima facie case has been established by the Complainant. It is only where such a prima facie case has been established that the burden of proving there was no infringement of the principle of equal treatment passes to the Respondent.

Reasonable accommodation

The Complainant relies on her assertion that the Respondent was aware of her disability and made no effort to provide her with reasonable accommodation in her application for employment.   I note the extensive documentation supplied by her in advance of the interview.

What differed significantly between the “2024 interview” and the “2025 interview” is contained in the clear and cogent evidence of the Manager Mr K who gave evidence in relation to his handling of the extensive documentation submitted by the Complainant the day before the interview.

Victimisation

The Complainant asserts that she was victimised by the Respondent as a result of making complaints or raising issues about her treatment in relation to the 2024 issue.  She also raises a complaint of victimisation in relation to a protected disclosure which is the subject of a separate decision.

Section 74(2) of the Acts defines victimisation as follows:

“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 the complainant

….. ….. …..

(f)     an employee having opposed by lawful means an act that is unlawful under this Act….

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

The Labour Court set out the three components which must be present for a claim of victimisation under Section 74(2) of the Acts to be made out. It stated that (i) the Complainant must have taken action of a type referred to at paragraphs (a)-(g) of Section 74(2) – what it terms a “protected act”, (ii) the Complainant must be subjected to adverse treatment by his/her employer and (iii) the adverse treatment must be in reaction to the protected act having been taken by the Complainant.   In the instant case I find that the Complainant relies on a number of issues she describes as ‘victimisation’ which do not constitute actions taken by an employer against an employee and the claim of victimisation has not been made out.

Accordingly, I find that in this instant case, in relation to the 2025 interview, I note the Respondent’s efforts to provide the Complainant in that specific situation, I find that the Respondent did not discriminate against the Complainant, either directly or indirectly and did not fail to provide her with reasonable accommodation and did not victimise her in retaliation for having carried out a protected act .   The complaint is not well founded.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.

Based on the findings and reasons above, I have decided that the complaint is not well founded.

Dated:   31st March 2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Key Words: