This case relates to a claim in respect of discrimination on the gender and disability grounds.  The complainant asserted that she returned from maternity leave to a very different role. The respondent argued that the situation pertaining on the complainant’s return to work was vastly different following the collapse of Lehmann Brothers.

The complainant raised many incidents in her complaint.  The Equality Officer was not satisfied that the earlier incidents were linked to the complainant’s return to work after maternity leave, i.e. there was no so-called ‘chain of events’ and confined his investigation to matters arising within six months of the submission of the complaint.

He found that the complainant’s old position existed and was being filled by another employee.  He went on to consider whether the two posts were equivalent.  He found that her new role was a supporting role and that it “dilutes the level of responsibility accorded to the complainant and the manner in which she was managed appears to be less favourable to how others were treated in the circumstances of the ongoing banking crises extant at that time”.  He found that the employer had failed to establish that the complainant’s new role was equivalent to her role prior to her maternity leave.  He also found that her claim in respect of disability could not succeed.

The complainant was awarded €30,000 equating to six months salary.

Why is this case of interest

• Given the pressures currently applying to business, do you assess the roles assigned to women returning from maternity leave to ensure equivalence with their role before they took the leave?
• Even where the changes affecting employers are as extreme as those applying in the banking sector, Equality Officers will consider how the complainant was treated in comparison to how others were treated in the circumstances extant at the time.