In a recent decision from the Equality Tribunal an employee who was discriminated against, and victimised, has been awarded €33,000 in compensation.
The actions of the Company in question left a lot to be desired by the tribunal and demonstrated the dangers of treating employees differently because of a certain characteristic which is protected under Equality Legislation.
Background
The case concerned Jolenta Drabik v Edward Zandi trading as Moonlite Cleaning Services Ltd (DEC-E2013-163) and was brought in relation to claims of discrimination on the grounds of gender, and then victimisation arising from this complaint. Victimisation is where an employee is treated inappropriately as a result of making a claim of discrimination. In this case the employee was working as a Cleaning Supervisor at €425 per week (which works out at €10.90 @ hour) and it was a full-time contract of indefinite duration. After Ms Drabik announced she was pregnant, she was given a part-time contract with a demoted title of Cleaning Assistant and a salary of €10.75 @ hour. The employee claimed that she was constructively dismissed and resigned her employment.
Discrimination
The Tribunal determined that "...the actions of Mr Zandi damaged the relationship of trust and confidence between himself and Ms Drabik. Her working hours were reduced as soon as she told her employer that she was pregnant. She arrived back to work after Christmas to find that she had no hours on the roster at all. She was put on Health and Safety Leave (without consultation) which meant her weekly income was significantly reduced. I do not accept the respondent’s contention that the reduced hours was done at the complainant’s initiative or that there was any mutuality in the arrangement. She was also presented with a written contract which represented a demotion. Therefore, she is entitled to claim constructive discriminatory dismissal on the ground of gender and the respondent has failed to rebut the case."
Victimisation
The Tribunal then looked at the issue of victimisation where it was found that "calling a meeting of employees to inform them that Ms Drabik had initiated legal proceedings was not prudent by Mr Zandi. I accept the complainant’s evidence that at this meeting other employees were encouraged to make a complaint of bullying against Ms Drabik. This is victimisation. It is to the credit of the other employees that they did not. Ms Drabik has established a prima facie case of victimisation and the respondent has failed to rebut it."
Decision
the Tribunal found that firstly the employee had been discriminated against on the grounds of Gender and awarded one years salary (€22,000) in compensation, and also found that as a result of her claim she suffered victimisation in the workplace and awarded six months salary (€11,000) in compensation. Equality decisions usually tend to be very high as they are meant to be desuasive and deter future employers from doing similar.
This case serves as a valuable reminder to employers that employees who are pregnant or on maternity leave should not be treated less favorably than comparable workers. In some cases an employer has no choice but to treat some employees differently (such as if they are pregnant it would be unreasonable to ask them to complete the exact same tasks as other employees if the tasks require heavy lifting or prolonged periods of standing) as a failure to do so would in itself be discriminatory, but for the most part an employer should be conscious of all the employee's circumstances and ensure that they are not treated any less favorably because of these.
