Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>O'Brien v Persian Properties trading as O'Callaghan Hotels [2012] IRET DEC-E2012-010
O'Brien v Persian Properties trading as O'Callaghan Hotels [2012] IRET DEC-E2012-010
Published on: 23/03/2012
Issues Covered:
Discrimination
Article Authors
The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Background
The case concerned a complaint by the complainant (Ms Julie O'Brien) that the respondent (Persian Properties trading as O'Callaghan Hotels) discriminated against her on the grounds of gender and family status leading to dismissal contrary to Section 8(6)(c) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2011. She is also claimed harassment on the same grounds within the meaning of 14A of the Acts. A complaint of victimisation, as defined in Section 74 of the Acts, was also made.The complainant was appointed Director of Sales and Marketing in 2003. She argued that during her tenure sales increased and the hotels in the group won several awards. She became pregnant in 2004 and gave birth just hours after finishing work. She continued to receive work-related calls and documents during maternity leave. She said similar pressures were applied in 2008 when she gave birth to her second son. She said the MD was negative in relation to her having children and said he would prefer it if she left should she have a third child but he later apologised.She became pregnant again in 2009 after two miscarriages and sought a 'stress free' maternity leave. After several meetings, some of which were heated and, according to the complainant, she was asked to resign, she was signed off sick on work-related stress. Despite sending in medical certificates to say that she was ill, on 10th August 2009 she received a letter from the General Manager to arrange a meeting to complete the handover of any outstanding issues. Without warning, her fuel card provided by O'Callaghan hotels was revoked and access to her work mobile phone was blocked. She was later sent a letter asking her to return all company property even though these were normally retained by employees on holiday, maternity leave etc.She engaged a solicitor who wrote to the respondent and said the complainant would resign at the end of her maternity leave. The baby was still born in September. She suffered an acute grief reaction. She claimed constructive dismissal and that a number of incidents constituted victimisation.The respondent said the complainant wanted to be involved during maternity leave and set up an office for this purpose. They denied harassing her and said they wished to facilitate her resignation that she requested. It was not enforced and she was 'extremely happy'.The Equality Officer preferred the evidence of the complainant on all counts and found that where the facts were in contention, they better fitted the complainant's version of events. The respondent was ordered to pay the complainant:(a) €220,500 (the equivalent of 21 months' salary) in compensation for the harassment and discriminatory dismissal; and(b) €94,500 (the equivalent of 9 months' salary) in compensation for the distress caused by victimisation.44http://bit.ly/GCJI8M
Continue reading
We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.
Already a subscriber?
Please log in to view the full article.
What you'll get:
- Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
- Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
- 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
- Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team
Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial
Disclaimer
The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article.
This article is correct at 23/03/2012
Recent Case Law
Morais v Ryanair DAC [2025]
21/01/2025
B (Trading as C) v A [2025]
21/01/2025
Duployen v Whyte & Mackay Ltd [2025]
14/01/2025
Q&A
How to handle it
Legal Island’s LMS, licensed to you
Imagine your staff having 24/7 access to a centralised training platform, tailored to your organisation’s brand and staff training needs, with unlimited users.
Learn more →
