Doctor awarded IEP 50,000 by Labour Court for discrimination

In April 2000, the Irish Labour Court overturned the recommendation of an Equality Officer and awarded a woman doctor IEP 50,000, after finding she had been discriminated against in an interview for a major consultancy post.

In one of the largest awards made by the Irish Labour Court, on 18 April 2000 it recently overturned the recommendation of an Equality Officer by awarding a woman doctor IEP 50,000, after finding she had been discriminated against in an interview for a consultant post in the Rotunda and Mater Hospitals in Dublin.

This is the second recent case in which a woman doctor claimed discrimination following an unsuccessful attempt to secure a consultant post. In 1999, a locum consultant claimed that she had been discriminated against by the Southern Health Board (SHB) after she failed to secure appointment at Cork University Hospital to the job she had been performing.

As with the SHB case - which was based on claims of general discrimination against women doctors in obtaining access to consultant posts - one of the six grounds for appeal by the appellant in the Dublin-based case, Dr Gleeson, was that she claimed there was "an ethos within the medical profession whereby male consultants are appointed to hospital posts, and that in particular in the area of obstetrics and gynaecology, less than 5% of the consultants are women". She claimed she was more suitable, better qualified, more experienced and had more publications than the successful candidate for the post in question. She also claimed that the successful candidate was allowed to resubmit his CV after the closing date, indicating a determination by the hospitals concerned to appoint him.

The Rotunda Hospital, represented by A & L Goodbody solicitors, and the Mater Hospital, represented by the Irish Business and Employers Confederation (IBEC), accepted that Dr Gleeson was more experienced, and had produced better publications. However, they argued that the qualifications of the two candidates were similar. The hospitals also argued that it was perfectly correct to ask the claimant about her willingness to work in a sexual assault treatment unit. It was their opinion that the claimant regarded the unit and its directors "with contempt". The claimant said that when she indicated that she would not be interested in doing voluntary work in the unit, one of the interview board made the comment "that's fine, sink the sisters."

The Labour Court said that it had studied the CVs of the claimant and the successful applicant and found "as fact, taken as a whole, the appellant's qualifications and experience were greater than those of the successful candidate." With respect to the question concerning her voluntary work in the sexual assault treatment unit and the comment "that's fine, sink the sisters", the Court said "such a comment, identifying the appellant by reason of her sex, could give rise to a prima facie finding of discrimination, particularly as the question was not put to the male applicants."

The Court found that the applicant had made out a prima facie case of discrimination and that the onus thus fell on the hospitals to justify their decision. The respondents had not fulfilled this requirement.