Workplace Relations Commission rules that the dismissal of a worker for a pregnancy-related illness constituted direct discrimination on the grounds of gender
On 29 August 2023, the Workplace Relations Commission (‘WRC’) concluded that the dismissal by a food company of a line cook who had fallen ill with a pregnancy-related illness constituted direct discrimination on the grounds of gender.
WRC Adjudications Officer Lefre de Burgh found that the conduct of food company Easy Meals Limited, which amounted to the “summary discriminatory dismissal of a pregnant woman” just one day after she was certified by a doctor as being unfit for work as a line cook, was not only “egregious in nature” but carried with it a degree of “foolishness”.
Over the course of three days in late 2022 and early 2023, the WRC heard that the complainant had started working as a line cook for Easy Meals Limited in 2020 and that she became pregnant in early 2021. She was admitted to hospital in February 2021 for severe nausea and vomiting as a result of her pregnancy. She returned to work for a time after this point but continued to experience severe difficulties with her pregnancy, and was met with the response that she was “pregnant, not disabled” when she attempted to raise these issues with her employer. On 18 February 2021, the complainant was certified by her doctor as being unfit for work, and she communicated this news to her employer the next day. On 19 February 2021, she was summarily dismissed by her employer in an email that cited the employer’s view that the complainant had “not been [her]self the last few weeks”.
In May 2021, the complainant lodged a complaint with the WRC pursuant to section 77 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998–2015, alleging that she had been discriminated against by her employer on the grounds of her gender and family status. Easy Meals Limited did not enter an appearance in the proceedings, although the WRC was “satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the hearing date, time and place”.
The WRC found in the circumstances that the complainant had established a prima facie case that she had been treated differently and less favourably as a direct result of her pregnancy (a case which Easy Meals Limited had failed to refute), and that European Court of Justice case law – and in particular, the ruling in case 177/88 (Dekker) – made it clear that “discriminatory acts relating to pregnancy are directly discriminatory on the gender ground”. Accordingly, the WRC ruled that Barrett had been the “the subject of direct discrimination on the ground of gender”. The WRC also accepted the complainant’s “uncontested evidence that she did not receive a contract (or any terms of employment), in contravention of the requirements of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994”. However, the WRC found that the applicant had not made out a claim in respect of discrimination on the grounds of family status, as she had “adduced no evidence” in relation to that particular claim.
In determining the matter of compensation to be awarded, the WRC noted that in employment law, “pregnant women are a particularly protected class of person legally, in recognition of the vulnerability – including economic vulnerability – which pregnancy and its attendant circumstances can bring”. The WRC awarded the applicant €16,000 in compensation and directed Easy Meals Limited to pay this amount within 42 days of the ruling.
Click here for the judgment in Stacey Barrett v Easy Meals Limited (Workplace Relations Commission, Adjudication Reference ADJ-00047278, 29 August 2023).