A female architect at a Government housing agency has been awarded €5,000 in a discrimination claim where she complained of a ‘toxic’ male culture in the workplace.
At the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), Adjudicator Michael McEntee has ordered The Housing Agency to pay Auveen Coombes-Lynch €5,000 arising from her successful gender discrimination claim under the Employment Equality Act.
In his findings, Mr McEntee found that his conclusion in relation to Ms Coombes Lynch’s successful discrimination claim concerning the ‘Male Culture’ in the workplace was largely derived from good oral evidence at hearing from Ms Coombes Lynch.
Read More: Dunnes Stores loses appeal over €83,000 damages to woman who slipped and fell in Dublin store
Mr McEntee stated that he also upheld the discrimination claim concerning the ‘Male Culture’ by drawing a strong inference from the considered “tactical absence of key management witnesses” who could easily have fully rebutted or indeed supported, under cross examination, Ms Coombes Lynch’s case.
Mr McEntee concluded that evidence from and cross examination of these witnesses would have either completely exonerated the Housing Agency or given sustenance to Ms Coombes Lynch’s prima facie case.
Mr McEntee found that Ms Coombes Lynch did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the gender grounds in relation to ‘promotion’. He also found that no case was made out to support her claim of discrimination on the ground of family status.
A qualified architect, Ms Coombes Lynch joined the Housing Agency in November 2015 as a Clerical Officer and rapidly moved through the ranks to a position of Staff Officer in 2016.
In her evidence at the WRC hearing, Ms Coombes Lynch maintained that despite an exemplary work record and requisite technical qualifications, she "had been subjected to a toxic “Male Only” culture".
Ms Coombes Lynch claimed that this had denied her training and experience “site visits” and thereby, as well as a campaign of undermining her in the work routines, had seriously handicapped her from promotions to Project Manager positions.
Ms Coombes Lynch claimed that she had effectively been discriminated against by a manager for being a female in a toxic “Male culture”.
Ms Coombes Lynch's counsel, Peter Leonard BL strongly queried the Housing Agency’s line up of management witnesses and argued that the employer was effectively handicapping Ms Coombes Lynch’s case in reducing her opportunities to challenge Housing Agency witnesses especially in the area of Management actions.
In her evidence and under vigorous cross examination by the Housing Agency’s lawyer, Ms Coombes Lynch clearly maintained that her manager had, by a series of actions diminished her status, created a culture where necessary, for recruitment CV purposes, “Site Visits” were discouraged and generally made it clear that it was a 'Male' environment especially on the technical side.
Ms Coombes Lynch stated that in May 2018, she applied for a Project Manager (PM) position and was successfully placed on a twelve-month panel.
In June 2019, the Panel having expired, she applied for another PM position. However, a colleague was informed by a Senior Manager that “He was the right man for the job” just three days after the position was advertised.
Ms Coombes Lynch stated that unsurprisingly, the male colleague was appointed following the interviews.
Ms Coombes Lynch alleged that she was given a site visit opportunity but in a sexist manner regarding what clothes she should wear.
She also claimed that she was expected to do her ordinary day’s work as well as the site visit and this stipulation was not required of male colleagues.
Mr McEntee found that Ms Coombes Lynch’s evidence was well delivered “and she presented as a very creditable professional officer”.
He said: “However, the difficulty for her was that she was effectively relying on her version of events regarding the male culture without supporting evidence.”
He also found that a HR executive who gave evidence for the Housing Agency was "an excellent witness" who testified that no discrimination occurred in the running of the recruitment campaigns.
This witness agreed under cross examination, however, that the day to day operation of Ms. Coombes-Lynch's Department, and what happened between the parties there, was not really in her area of knowledge.
Housing Agency lawyers maintained that Ms Coombes Lynch’s claim was based on disappointment with her results in the recruitment processes.
A lawyer for the Housing Agency argued that various allegations about Managers, things allegedly said or not said and a purported “Toxic Culture” could not substitute for real evidence.
The Housing Agency also claimed that the fact that Ms Coombes Lynch had successfully made the Panel of Successful candidates completely negated her allegations of discrimination.
The Housing Agency further stated that as regards suggestions and purported alleged assumptions of Gender discrimination against Ms Coombes Lynch by various individuals, these were simply unfounded and had no evidential basis.
The Housing Agency further argued that Ms Coombes Lynch’s claim had to be rejected as the complaint lacked the required standard of proof to establish a prima facie case of Discrimination and was replete with baseless unsupported suppositions.
READ NEXT:
Soldiers ordered on trip of more than 500km to work security at Dublin Airport
Christmas could come early for 1.4 million people as 'government plans bonus'
Met Eireann's forecast shows best days of the week as summer returns to Ireland
Former RTE producer Kieran Creaven wants prison transfer over 'bullying issues'
