A lecturer who claimed she was sexually discriminated against when she applied unsuccessfully for a position as Professor of Law at the University of Limerick (UL) four years ago lost her action in the High Court yesterday.
Ms Patricia Conlan, a law lecturer at the university, had applied for the post but was notified in May 1995 that she had not been short-listed for interview, as there were other candidates whose qualifications and experience more closely matched the UL's immediate requirements.
She said the advertisement for the post specified that the successful candidate "will have several years' experience at a senior academic level".
She argued that requirement had indirectly discriminated against her on grounds of sex, as very few women would be qualified for the post because there were very few women at senior academic level.
Ms Conlan's complaint of discrimination was referred by the Labour Court to an equality officer who in September 1996 issued a recommendation that she had not been discriminated against. The recommendation was upheld by the Labour Court on appeal in October 1997.
The lecturer then appealed to the High Court, on a point of law, against the determination of the Labour Court.
In his judgment rejecting the claim yesterday, Mr Justice McCracken said the Labour Court had made a finding of fact, based on the UL's case, that the requirements for the post were reasonable and essential for reasons not connected with the sex of the applicants.
There was no doubt but that the Labour Court had erred in referring to a Section of the 1997 Employment Equality Act in its finding, the judge said. It had, however, considered the case from the perspective of indirect discrimination, which was the correct approach to take, even if it attributed its approach to the wrong section of the Act.
He said the Labour Court had applied the principles in relation to indirect discrimination perfectly correctly.
In his view, the Labour Court had adopted the correct approach in having regard to the circumstances of the particular case and in holding that in those circumstances the requirements were either reasonable or essential.
The judge said an argument had been advanced on behalf of Ms Conlan that the Labour Court had failed to take into consideration the lack of transparency in the criteria applied for appointment to the post. He did not think a lack of transparency arose.
He found that the Labour Court did objectively consider the reasons for making the requirements set out in the advertisement for the post and that it reached the conclusion that they were essential requirements which had no connection with the sex of the applicant.