These reports discuss this legal issue. Inclusion is not a finding or conviction, or a statement about a person's identity or status. Read each report's procedural stage and outcome.
A Workplace Relations Commission adjudicating officer ordered a creche to pay €5,000 in compensation to a gay employee for discriminatory harassment under the Employment Equality Act 1998. The hearing, brought under the Equal Status Act 2000, found that the complainant was effectively "outed" at work after a colleague, Ms A, persistently questioned her about her romantic interests. Although the officer found no intentional targeting based on sexual orientation, he determined that Ms A's conduct constituted unlawful harassment, noting the complainant was "deeply upset" and that the creche lacked adequate sexual harassment training beyond written policies. The officer also rejected a second complaint of victimisation regarding alleged roster changes, which the respondent argued were based on business needs during the pandemic. The creche's solicitor denied discrimination, arguing the incident was handled sensitively and that the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case. The complainant's legal team argued that the manager's response undermined the employer's harassment policy. The decision was fully anonymised, with neither the creche nor the worker identified. The matter was concluded with the award of compensation for the harassment claim.
In a decision published on 30 March 2023, the Workplace Relations Commission dismissed Adel Sallam's claim that he was racially discriminated against when a cashier at Aldi in Drogheda asked him to move to another checkout. Sallam, a businessman who had lived in Ireland since the 2000s, alleged that the cashier's repeated instructions and gestures were discriminatory. The tribunal found no evidence of racial discrimination, noting that the cashier's actions were consistent with normal store procedures and that the complainant had not made any reference to race. The adjudicator concluded that the alleged poor customer service was a trivial matter and that equality law should not be used to address such complaints. The case was therefore dismissed without further hearing.
In a discrimination claim under the Employment Equality Act 1998, Sergeant David Haughney, a former public‑order trainer who lost 70% of sight in his left eye in 2014, alleges that Superintendent Adrian Gamble failed to provide reasonable accommodation and subjected him to discriminatory harassment. Haughney's complaint, heard by the Workplace Relations Commission, focuses on a fitness‑to‑work meeting in which he claims Gamble waved a medical document and that he was nearly in tears. Gamble denies being confrontational or arrogant, stating he did not see Haughney upset and that he followed the Chief Medical Officer's advice to restrict Haughney to strictly non‑confrontational duties. The hearing included testimony from retired inspectors and a discussion of internal complaints, with the commission expected to issue a decision within six weeks.
In a 2023 case, a layman who had been declared a null marriage by a Catholic Church marriage tribunal under canon law filed a discrimination claim under the Equal Status Act 2000, alleging disability discrimination. He argued that the tribunal's annulment declaration had insulted him and portrayed him as financially and domestically dependent. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) ruled it had no jurisdiction over the tribunal's adjudicative work, noting that the tribunal's decision‑making function lay outside the definition of a "service" under the Act. The WRC found the man's claim was motivated by unhappiness with the annulment and that he had not pursued an appeal to the Pope, the only remaining avenue to challenge the annulment. Consequently, the WRC dismissed the discrimination claim, concluding the tribunal's actions did not constitute unlawful discrimination.
The publishing group behind the parenting website EveryMum, Zahra Publishing Ltd, was ordered by the Workplace Relations Commission to pay sales executive Sandra Varian €32,500 for maternity‑related discrimination. Varian, who joined the firm on 1 July 2021 as group sales director, informed the CEO on 5 August 2021 that she was 12 weeks pregnant. The company claimed she was dismissed for poor performance, citing a series of meetings and a reduced sales target of €100,000 by 13 December. Varian's solicitor argued that the company's decision to terminate her was linked to her pregnancy, noting that a former colleague had her probation extended despite lower sales. The adjudicating officer, Hugh Lonsdale, found that the employer failed to prove the adverse treatment was unrelated to pregnancy and awarded Varian compensation equivalent to six months' salary.
Pádraig McMahon, a technical support manager at Opentext Ireland Limited, lost his job in a redundancy scheme in June 2020. He argued that the selection process was unfair, citing a lack of transparency and no prior warning that his role was at risk. The Workplace Relations Commission found that while a valid redundancy situation existed, the process was not carried out fairly or transparently, and that alternatives to redundancy were not considered. Consequently, Mr McMahon was awarded a compensatory sum of €41,400, equivalent to 11 months' remuneration less the statutory redundancy payment. His separate claims of gender‑based pay discrimination, disability discrimination and victimisation were dismissed because he failed to establish a prima facie case in each. The adjudicating officer noted that the company's redundancy matrix was vague and did not meet the required standard of transparency.
In a dispute between Spiritan‑run Templeogue College and two senior teachers, Patricia O'Connell and Bríd Stack, the parties reached a settlement after a hearing at the Workplace Relations Commission. The teachers had filed victimisation claims under the Employment Equality Act, alleging exclusionary treatment by senior management following complaints of age‑based discrimination. They also complained that an allowance for assistant principal duties had been withdrawn and that they were excluded from meetings and key roles. The hearing involved exchanges between barristers, a recusal of the original adjudicating officer, and the appointment of a new officer. The settlement was announced as acceptable to both sides, with the teachers' complaints withdrawn and the parties agreeing to terms that resolved the matter. The case was concluded at the WRC headquarters in Dublin 4.
Kasia Czernik, a former RTÉ newsreader, claims she was sexually harassed by senior colleague Noel Fogarty through texts, emails and phone calls from 18 to 21 June 2021, just ten days before her wedding. She filed a complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission under the Employment Equality Act 1999, alleging RTÉ failed to inform her of the disciplinary sanction against Fogarty, who was dismissed in September 2021. Fogarty was suspended pending investigation, and RTÉ removed his security access. HR head Tanya McNulty testified that Fogarty was instructed not to contact Czernik and that meetings with Czernik were held to discuss security and her concerns. Czernik's solicitor Barry Crushell argued that victims should know the consequences faced by harassers, while RTÉ's counsel defended the broadcaster's privacy obligations. The tribunal has not yet issued a decision. The case is ongoing.
Mr Hatem Mohamed, a job applicant, claimed he was denied a position at TikTok because of his age, alleging a question about working with a team leader in his twenties was asked during his third interview. The Workplace Relations Commission rejected his complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998, stating the claim had no basis in fact. TikTok's legal team argued there was no discrimination, and interview notes showed no reference to such a question. The interviewer, Sohail Khan, confirmed he never asked about age or a younger team leader and that the question was not relevant to the role. The WRC found TikTok's recruitment process was robust and diverse, and Mr Mohamed failed to prove any discriminatory conduct. The complaint was not upheld.
A landlord who refused to sign a Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) form for a tenant was ordered to pay €10,000 in compensation for discrimination under the Equal Status Act. The tenant, a refugee, claimed the landlord's refusal left her in a sub‑standard flat with damp and a leaking roof, preventing her from receiving the higher HAP scheme. She had repeatedly asked the landlord to accept the form, but he declined, citing the flat's condition and concerns about future rent payments. The landlord also threatened eviction notices and suggested the tenant move to a neighbouring flat for renovations. The adjudicating officer found the tenant's evidence credible, noted the landlord's ongoing refusal amounted to less‑favourable treatment, and upheld the discrimination complaint as serious. The order included compensation for loss of earnings and the difference in the tenant's rent contribution. The press was barred from identifying the parties.
In a decision by the Workplace Relations Commission, Iceland Foods Ireland Ltd was ordered to pay €12,000 in compensation to four Traveller women who claimed they were told to leave an Iceland supermarket in Finglas, Dublin 11, without explanation two years earlier. The women—Laura McDonnell, Megan McDonnell and two young girls—filed complaints under the Equal Status Act, alleging discrimination by an assistant manager and a security guard. The commission found that the assistant manager dismissed a year and a half earlier and the guard had been involved in a traffic accident, but these facts were unrelated to the case. The adjudicating officer, Brian Dalton, concluded that the staff had engaged in prohibited conduct, awarding each complainant €3,000 for emotional upset and embarrassment. The decision was based on credible evidence, CCTV footage and the complainants' testimony that they were identified as Travellers and treated differently from other customers.
Ian Kilroy, a Buddhist lecturer at the Technical University of Dublin, brought a discrimination claim under the Equal Status Act after receiving an email from the university's chaplaincy service on 15 February 2021 asking, "Who is Jesus?" He argued that the email, sent to a universal list, was an unsolicited proselytising act that discriminated against him because the chaplaincy was exclusively Christian and controlled by the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin. Kilroy also claimed that the university failed to provide adequate facilities for minority faiths, citing the lack of dedicated spaces for Muslim, Jewish or Buddhist staff and students and the closure of the university's Zen Society. The adjudicating officer, Pat Brady, found no evidence of a discriminatory act, noting that the email was a universal notice and that the university had provided neutral spaces for reflection. The claim was dismissed, with the officer concluding that the email did not amount to discrimination.
A bus driver has lost a discrimination claim against Dublin Bus at the Workplace Relations Commission over the withdrawal of a day-shift arrangement made to accommodate his sleep apnoea. Karl Griffin brought a complaint under the Employment Equality Act alleging disability discrimination and denial of reasonable accommodation. Dublin Bus had assigned him to daytime shifts on the number 17A route for approximately five years following his diagnosis, a pattern normally reserved for senior drivers. When the company lost the contract to operate that route, Mr Griffin was reassigned. Adjudicating officer Penelope McGrath found that while the accommodation had been medically recommended, it was not reasonable to expect the arrangement to continue indefinitely. Ms McGrath noted the complainant's refusal to accommodate his manager's proposals was unreasonable and dismissed the claim, finding he had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) is set to decide on a large number of discrimination claims linked to face mask requirements during Covid-19. Its 2021 annual report shows 572 claims under the Equal Status Act, with 362 alleging disability discrimination, a 298% increase from 91 in 2020. The WRC's case load can delay hearings by up to a year. Only one mask‑related case has been decided in favour of a complainant: James Oliver Tattan, who was medically exempt from wearing a mask at the Gresham Hotel on 16 December 2020, was awarded €500 compensation after the hotel failed to produce CCTV footage and the porter refused to see his disability letter. In seven other mask‑related Employment Equality Act complaints decided this year, the WRC ruled against the complainants. Separately, WRC inspectors recovered €964,281 from employers breaching employment law, with the largest sums from wholesale/retail trade, food service, and security sectors.
Noel McGrath, the applicant, lost his discrimination claim under the Equal Status Act against Aurivo Co-Operative Society Limited. The Workplace Relations Commission dismissed the allegation that McGrath was discriminated against on the grounds of disability after a cashier at a Homevalue store in Belmullet refused to serve him without a face mask on 22 March 2021. McGrath alleged he was exempt from masking rules due to a medical condition and claimed staff refused service until the manager intervened. However, adjudicating officer Janet Hughes found that McGrath did not disclose his disability or medical reason to the cashier or other staff during the incident. The officer noted that the cashier's refusal was motivated by personal safety concerns for herself and her vulnerable father, rather than any dismissal of a health issue. Evidence from a shop worker, deemed credible by the officer, indicated McGrath told colleagues that everyone was "brainwashed" and that the situation was a "conspiracy." The Commission concluded that the refusal to serve was not related to a disability at any stage. Consequently, the claim was dismissed, and no finding of discrimination was made.
In a June 2022 decision, the Workplace Relations Commission awarded Mr Laurence Dunne, a 60‑year‑old secondary teacher, over €3,000 in compensation for age discrimination after he was denied the housemaster role at Franciscan College Gormanstown. Mr Dunne claimed that during his interview he was asked whether he had the "energy" for the additional duties, a question he interpreted as relating to his age. The school argued the question concerned physical fitness and was unrelated to age. The Commission found the question was indirectly age‑based, as it compared candidates on a basis that would affect older applicants more. Consequently, the Commission ruled the school had breached the Employment Equality Act and ordered a €3,300 compensation payment to Mr Dunne.
Ann Doherty, an employment support instructor at St John of God Community Services, was denied permission to work from home while pregnant during the first year of the Covid‑19 pandemic. She claimed discrimination under the Employment Equality Act, arguing that other staff were allowed to work remotely. The Workplace Relations Commission found that the employer had unlawfully denied her full pay and work access from March to August 2020. The adjudicating officer noted that Doherty was particularly vulnerable, being pregnant and caring for a young child, and that the employer's refusal was not justified. Consequently, the commission ordered St John of God Community Services to pay Doherty €45,000 in compensation for the loss of pay and the discriminatory treatment she endured.
In a complaint lodged under Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, Glen Weir, a British Protestant worker at Anord Mardix (Ireland) Ltd in Dundalk, alleged sectarian harassment after two female colleagues repeatedly played anti‑British songs, including one with the lyric "go home you British bastards," and a colleague shouted "up the RA." Weir claimed the music made him uncomfortable and that the comment was threatening, leading him to leave work and feel intimidated. The employer denied the claim, stating Weir had an "agenda" and had not accepted the outcome of an internal appeals process. Anord Mardix's solicitor reported that Weir had failed to attend work on 3 July, requested a meeting, and later invoked the grievance procedure after a mediation meeting on 15 July. The company implemented a new policy prohibiting personal music on the assembly line.
The Workplace Relations Commission has rejected a discrimination complaint under the Equal Status Act brought by a garda against a hotel. The adjudicating officer ruled the complaint was made out of time, as it was filed beyond the statutory two-month deadline following an alleged incident in February 2020. The complainant claimed a 16-year-old work experience student and a waitress treated his family differently because he was a foreign national, alleging they were asked to leave breakfast early while other guests were welcomed. The hotel argued the staff were preparing for major events and that the student's behavior, described by the complainant as a "smirk," did not constitute prohibited conduct. The adjudicator found the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, noting there was no evidence that other guests were treated differently based on nationality. The decision was anonymised to protect the identity of the minor student. The adjudicator also noted that a medical certificate provided by the complainant did not justify an extension to the filing timeline. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed on procedural grounds, and the adjudicator explicitly found that the respondent did not engage in prohibited conduct.
John Hamill, an atheist campaigner, filed a complaint under the Employment Equality Act alleging that the Department of Defence discriminated against him by refusing to consider him for a military chaplaincy role. He argued that the policy allowing bishops to select chaplains favours Christians and excludes non‑religious candidates. Hamill presented evidence of repeated correspondence with the Minister for Defence, noting a lack of substantive response until July 2020. He highlighted that the Defence Forces' chaplaincy is described as "working on religious foundations" yet claims to respect all faiths. During the remote adjudication hearing, the Department's counsel presented data showing a high proportion of Catholic personnel and challenged Hamill's comparison to prison chaplaincy. Hamill maintained that the role's requirement for a monotheistic belief is unfounded and that the policy constitutes discrimination. The hearing concluded with the adjudicator to decide on the matter.
The Workplace Relations Commission has upheld a discrimination claim under the Equal Status Act brought by James Oliver Tattan against the Gresham Hotel, O'Connell Street Upper, Dublin 1. At an adjudication hearing, Mr Tattan alleged that a hotel porter insisted he wear a face mask despite his medical exemption, causing him distress and embarrassment. He stated he possessed a letter confirming his disability, which the porter refused to examine, and that he was never offered a face shield as an alternative. The hotel denied discrimination, asserting it was complying with pandemic health and safety protocols, and claimed Mr Tattan failed to produce his exemption letter. The hotel also noted it could not produce CCTV footage as it had been overwritten. Adjudication officer Davnet O'Driscoll accepted Mr Tattan's evidence that he was not given the option of a face shield and felt compelled to leave. The officer found that mask regulations did not require coverings where a reasonable excuse, such as a disability, existed. Consequently, the commission awarded Mr Tattan €500 for distress and the effects of discrimination. The hotel's management stated the porter involved has since returned to his home country.
The Workplace Relations Commission has ordered Atlantic Troy Ltd, trading as the Charleville Park Hotel, to pay €22,000 in compensation to Bridget O'Reilly, her partner Phillip O'Neill, and their two sons. The adjudicator found that the hotel, owned by Supermac's founder Pat McDonagh and his wife Una McDonagh, discriminated against the family under the Equal Status Act by refusing emergency accommodation on 28 September 2020. The complainants alleged they were denied a three-night stay because the hotel insisted on a credit card in the guest's name, a policy the adjudicator determined was a device to exclude those receiving housing assistance. The adjudicator found that membership of the Travelling Community was a material factor in the refusal, noting the hotel's stance fell below the threshold of decency. The hotel strenuously denied discrimination, arguing the family sought a home rather than hotel accommodation and citing previous damage caused by other Traveller groups. However, the adjudicator found the hotel's evidence inconsistent and upheld the complaints on grounds of housing assistance and Traveller status. The compensation breakdown includes €8,000 for Ms. O'Reilly, €8,000 for Mr. O'Neill, and €3,000 for each son. This ruling marks the second time this year the hotel has been ordered to compensate members of the Travelling community for similar discriminatory practices.
In a 2022 case, the Red Cow Moran Hotel was ordered to pay a waiter €12,500 in compensation after the hotel's general manager repeatedly called him 'Chico' during a busy Christmas shift. Filipe Ongaro, a Latino waiter, filed two complaints under the Employment Equality Act, alleging racial discrimination and claiming he was dismissed the next day for raising the issue. He described feeling very uncomfortable and having no one to complain to, as the manager was in charge. The hotel apologized, stating the manager had no intention to offend and had used the term generally. The adjudicating officer found the term 'Chico' offensive and a derogatory term for people of Latin American descent, and concluded that the hotel had not rebutted the discrimination claim. Consequently, the hotel was ordered to pay the compensation amount.
Dr Sylvie Lannegrand, Dr Rosin Healy, Dr Margaret Hodgins, and Dr Adrienne Gorman have initiated High Court proceedings against the National University of Ireland Galway, alleging gender discrimination in a promotion competition for senior lecturer positions between October 2008 and April 2009. The applicants claim they were treated less favourably on grounds of gender and family status, arguing the selection process was inconsistent and that adequate weight was not given to their teaching and research abilities. They seek declarations that the process breached their contracts, the 1997 Universities Act, Employment Equality Acts, and EU law, along with damages and orders for promotion effective July 1, 2009. NUIG denies the claims, arguing the Workplace Relations Commission is the proper forum and that the actions are misconceived. The case follows a 2014 Equality Tribunal finding that Dr Micheline Sheehy Skeffington was discriminated against in the same process, resulting in her promotion and a €70,000 payment. At a pre-trial hearing before Mr Justice Donald Binchy, NUIG applied to have certain legal points tried as a preliminary action, including whether the Employment Equality Acts modify employment contracts to include an implied right to gender equality and if the claims are statute-barred. The applicants opposed this, arguing the issues are complex and cannot be separated from the substantive action. The judge reserved his decision on the application, which is to be delivered next week.
Ryanair has applied to the High Court for a preliminary hearing on matters it says the Equality Tribunal should address before considering a complaint by former pilot John Goss. Goss claims he was dismissed in August 2013, two months before his 60th birthday, on the grounds of age discrimination. Ryanair denies the allegation, stating the dismissal was for gross misconduct and that its Dublin pilots retire at 60. The airline has repeatedly requested the Tribunal to hold a preliminary hearing to determine whether Goss's claims are frivolous, vexatious, untimely, or otherwise lacking merit, and to confirm the airline's right to set a retirement age. The Tribunal has not yet responded or given reasons for refusing the hearing. Ryanair seeks judicial review, orders for the Tribunal to reply substantively and promptly, and declarations that the Tribunal's failure breaches constitutional justice and fair procedure.
Corporal Tracey Quinn (32) has initiated a High Court action to challenge her discharge from the defence forces, alleging gender discrimination. She claims she is not being offered re-engagement after 15 years of service due to not completing an overseas tour of duty since 2004. The defence forces require members to have undertaken an overseas tour within the previous three years or completed two such tours during their 12-year enlistment period. Quinn argues that her inability to complete a second tour was due to maternity leave and the need to care for her children, as well as her husband's overseas service. She was initially allowed to extend her enlistment period to 2014 to meet other re-engagement criteria, including physical fitness and good conduct. Despite this, she was informed last July that she would not be re-engaged due to her overseas duty record. She appealed the decision, but her discharge was directed earlier this month.