A care service provider has been ordered to pay a social care worker €45,000 for discriminating against her when not allowing her work from home during the Covid-19 pandemic.
At the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), Adjudicator Kevin Baneham has ordered St John of God Services to pay Ann Doherty under the Employment Equality Act for discriminating against her because she was a parent and pregnant at the time.
In his findings, Mr Baneham found that Ms Doherty “was not facilitated with working from home when those colleagues without childcare responsibilities or who were not pregnant were facilitated”.
Read More: ‘Last in, first out’ policy causes havoc for Ireland’s special needs assistants, says rep
Mr Baneham said: “This is evidence not only of less favourable treatment on grounds of family status and gender, but that it was precisely because she had a one year old child at home and because she was pregnant that the complainant was denied the facility of working from home, a facility afforded to others.”
Mr Baneham found that from March 2020 Ms Doherty should have been allowed to work home until August 14th 2020, the date Ms Doherty was certified by her maternity hospital as unfit for work, including from home.
He found that he could see no reason why Ms Doherty “could not have also been formally allowed work from home and be paid for doing so".
Mr Baneham stated that “there was work to do and many others were so facilitated”.
Mr Baneham stated that as adduced in evidence in the case, “effects of discrimination go far beyond any amount of financial loss”.
Mr Baneham noted that Ms Doherty “was particularly vulnerable at this time, as someone who was pregnant and with a young child during a pandemic”.
The adjudicator stated that Ms Doherty’s experiences between March and August 2020 “may have contributed to her ill-health in the latter stages of her pregnancy”.
Mr Baneham found that Mr Doherty “was fully committed” to the mission and to the clients of St John of God Services and he said that St John of God Services “in the midst of a pandemic, knowing of her pregnancy and childcare needs, denied her access to work and full pay for no lawful reason when the same facility was afforded to others”.
Ms Doherty said that in March and April 2020 she was sent work to do at home even though she was on sick leave.
Mr Baneham stated that it was a striking feature in the case that Ms Doherty “gave such cogent and persuasive evidence”.
Mr Baneham stated that Ms Doherty “gave a clear account of what happened, why it was discrimination as a parent of a child and being pregnant as well as the effects of this discrimination on her”.
Mr Baneham stated that because of the impressive cogency of Ms Doherty’s evidence, he resolved the conflicts of evidence entirely in Ms Doherty’s favour.
Mr Baneham stated: “I find that what the complainant gave in evidence is what happened and is the truth.”
Mr Baneham noted that Ms Doherty’s supervisor, who was new to the job, was working from home.
In evidence, Ms Doherty stated that that she felt that she was left with no option but to take sick leave during the pandemic as she had no childcare to the closure of her child’s creche.
Ms Doherty submitted that she was not given the same options as other parents or as other pregnant women.
She said that colleagues were allowed to work at home, availing of zoom calls to contact service users as an alternative to frontline services.
Ms Doherty stated that this had a negative effect on her mental health and her financial situation.
Ms Doherty stated that the reason for the sick leave from March 2020 was because she had no other option as her employer did not provide a suitable working environment.
Ms Doherty stated she had recently resigned her employment as this was a humiliating experience. She said that it felt like coercive control, and she had found another part time job.
Ms Doherty stated that she has lost a job she really loved. It was very convenient for her, and she felt like she was cheated out of the job she really loved.
Ms Doherty said that she would have liked to have worked there for years and her confidence was shattered by what had happened.
The circumstances around her resigning her post in November 2021 were not part of her discrimination claim before the WRC
In submissions, St John of God Services denied that Ms Doherty was discriminated against on the family status ground or on any of the other grounds under the Employment Equality Act.
Get breaking news to your inbox by signing up to our newsletter
