Awards for women dismissed while pregnant

TWO WOMEN have been awarded €30,000 and €16,000 in separate cases against their former employers who made them redundant when they were pregnant.

Judgments in the cases have just been published by the Equality Tribunal.

The first case was taken against debt-collection agency Interim Justia by Kerrie McGarvey, who said she had been discriminated against on the grounds of gender and her family status under the terms of the Equality Acts, 1998-2007.

She had begun working with the Irish branch of the company in January 2006 having already worked in its Liverpool office. In August that year, when she was seven months' pregnant, she was selected for redundancy as part of a cost-cutting exercise. She told the tribunal the director had previously made negative reference to her family commitments on a number of occasions.

Equality officer Conor Stokes concluded the way staff were chosen for redundancy had not been sufficiently objective or transparent and the decision was not unbiased, given that the financial director, who was not her immediate line manager, chose her for redundancy. He found that Ms McGarvey's employer had discriminated against her on the grounds of gender and family status.

In another case, Sinead Bermingham was awarded €16,000 in a case against her former employer, Colours Hair Team hair salon. She told the tribunal she had started work with the company in February 2005.

In January 2006 she told her manager, Mr K, she was pregnant. The following month she went to work and was told to go to a nearby hotel where she met Mr K and a director Ms CC and ". . . without any warning she was let go as things were not working out".

The company rejected the allegations of discrimination on the grounds of gender and outlined nine instances between March and November 2005 where Ms Bermingham had been late for work, had not reported for work or had been lethargic at work.

Equality officer Hugh Lonsdale accepted the employer's view that the instances warranted disciplinary measures. However, he noted that as Ms Bermingham had been dismissed one month after she had informed her employer she was pregnant, she had a prima facie case for her contention of discrimination.