School ordered to pay €9,000 to male student discriminated against for wearing one earring
The case, which was decided earlier this month, heard that the boy had worn one stud earring to school. This was contrary to the school's Code of Conduct, which stated that one stud earring in each ear were the only piercings allowed, the school's representative argued.
The complainant alleged that he was the victim of discrimination on the grounds of gender and sexual orientation. He sought to ground his case under these claims under the Equal Status Act.
The boy claimed that he was both directly discriminated against and indirectly, as a girl was more likely to wear an earring in each ear by choice. It was argued that 'what appears a neutral provision is not'.
It was further alleged that he was instructed to get a second piercing in his other ear if he wished to wear his current piercing, or else to remove it during school hours or cover the stud with a plaster.
Advertisement
It was set out in the complainant's submissions that the boy had been subjected to 'public humiliation, left sitting in disgrace outside the Principal's office, removed from his normal classes for long periods… denied the privilege of going down town with his peers during school lunchtime, denied access to a boy's field trip and left to attend a girl's field trip, threatened with after-school detention, had his mother shouted at…', all arising from his lack of cooperation over the issue of the single stud earring.
The school rejected his submission and said that any other student, male or female, would have been sanctioned identically. It said that it was not aware of the student's sexual orientation, claiming that the student's case citing harassment as a result was therefore not relevant.
The school said that many 'famous men' including footballers and musicians wear stud earrings in both ears.
'There appears to be a suggestion that the requirement to wear two earrings imputes gender fluidity. This allegation is made with absolutely no evidence whatsoever,' the school's submission said.
It claimed that the case was simply the student refusing to abide by the Code of Conduct.
The WRC Adjudicating Officer Brian Dalton found that the student had been discriminated against on the basis on gender, but not on the basis of sexual orientation. The adjudicating officer ruled that the rule regarding earrings favours females over males.
The school was ordered to amend its rule to state that students are permitted to wear only one stud earring in each ear, or one earring in one ear. The school was ordered to pay €9,000 to the student, which is to be held by his mother until he turns 18-years-old.
Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article.
Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.
Learn More
Support The Journal
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
15 hours ago
- Irish Times
Call centre worker loses unfair dimissal case over abusive language on open phone line
A telephonist who was 'marched out' of a call centre after being sacked for using 'abusive and foul language' over an open phone line in the mistaken belief she had put the customer on hold has lost a claim for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. Bosses at Infosys BPM Ltd concluded the worker, Colleen Lonergan, jeopardised a 'valuable' client contract and committed gross misconduct when she was heard to remark 'what a f***ing b***h' by the customer last year, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) heard. In a decision just published, the employment tribunal has rejected a series of statutory complaints against the firm by Ms Lonergan, including claims under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 and the Employment Equality Act 1998. Ms Lonergan told the WRC the phrase was intended to 'describe the situation rather than the customer', the tribunal noted. READ MORE 'The problem is that the customer heard it and took it to be a direct reference to her,' a WRC adjudicator wrote. It happened during a 'particularly difficult' call on in June last year, when Ms Lonergan said she had been 'on the phone for an hour and 45 minutes without help', the tribunal noted. Ms Lonergan's evidence was that she 'thought the call was on hold'. Adjudication officer Penelope McGrath wrote in her decision that, by the time the case came before her, the tape of the call that had been reviewed in a company investigation had been wiped. 'There does not seem to be any doubt that the complainant used the word 'b***h' while on the call,' the adjudicator wrote. She noted the sworn evidence of the company investigator, a junior operations manager, that the phrase used was: 'What a f***ing b***h.' 'I understand that the tape was played in the course of the investigation and disciplinary process and that there was, at that time, no dispute that the language which was used was unacceptable,' Ms McGrath wrote. The adjudicator wrote that it was to Ms Lonergan's credit that she 'owned her mistake immediately' and raised it with the team leader. Ms Lonergan was allowed to keep working for a number of days while a disciplinary process took its course in early July 2024, but was 'marched out of the building' upon her dismissal in what the adjudicator considered to be 'regrettable' circumstances. Ms Lonergan, had also advanced a complaint of workplace discrimination against her former employer, referenced absences from work owing to health trouble on one occasion, and 'a breakdown crying at work over home issues and bad calls from customers' on another. 'I was continually harassed about taking too long coming back from toilet and breaks even though I was struggling with my various health issues,' Ms Lonergan wrote in a letter to the WRC. 'It's my belief that when I made the mistake on the call… the company took full opportunity to terminate my employment because of my ongoing health issues,' she added. The company's position was that there was 'no substance whatsoever to these allegations', the WRC noted. Addressing the disability discrimination element of the claim, the adjudicator wrote that she did not form the impression that Ms Lonergan's team leader had to 'chivvy' her along from bathroom and smoke breaks any 'more or less' than other staff. 'I note there were never any disciplinary issues around timekeeping and must assume that the team leader was simply doing her job,' Ms McGrath wrote. 'The respondent's position is that the claimant's behaviour in calling a customer a 'f***ing b***h' on a recorded call was completely unacceptable in the workplace, constitutes gross misconduct and warranted dismissal,' its representative Muireann McEnery submitted. Referencing this in her decision on the unfair dismissal claim, Ms McGrath wrote: 'I approve the respondent position as set out in the submission received.' She dismissed both the unfair dismissal and the disability discrimination complaints, along with further claims by Ms Lonergan under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, and the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973.
RTÉ News
2 days ago
- RTÉ News
Calling manager 'useless' not a firing offence, WRC finds
The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has ordered Tesco to re-employ a worker it sacked last year for calling his manager "useless" in a performance review meeting - after ruling the supermarket's management went over the top in dismissing him. Trade union SIPTU had accused supermarket bosses of "circling the wagons" in response to a legitimate grievance and subjecting the worker to a "crude exhibition of power" by upgrading a final written warning to summary dismissal to get rid of him. "The emperor does not like being told that he isn't wearing any clothes," the complainant's union rep said in a submission when the case came before the tribunal earlier this year. Denying warehouse operative Cathal Hussey's complaint under the Unfair Dismissal Act 1977, Tesco Ireland Ltd took the position that the manager's dignity was violated and the dismissal was "justified". Vivian Cullen of the SIPTU Workers' Rights Centre, appearing for Mr Hussey, submitted that his client, a Tesco employee of 16 years earning €700 a week, had "outstanding legitimate grievances which were being ignored by management" when he met with his line manager, Martynas Bajarunas for a performance review meeting on 25 November 2023. According to Mr Bajarunas's account of the meeting, the claimant read from a 12-page document outlining unspecified "concerns and issues". "At the end, he said to me: 'You are useless.'" The witness said he felt "harassed, stressed and bullied" by the remark, adding later that he had made a formal complaint because he felt "unsafe coming to work". The complainant, Mr Hussey, did not give any evidence to the tribunal. The tribunal heard Mr Bajarunas filed a formal grievance under the company's bullying and harassment policy against Mr Hussey – who refused to participate in an investigation meeting in January 2024. The probe concluded Mr Hussey had committed a breach of the policy. The contents of the 12-page document he had produced and read were out of line with company policy and "very concerning, unreasonable, disrespectful and improper", the investigator further concluded. Following a disciplinary meeting on 19 January, which Mr Hussey did attend, a company disciplinary officer decided there was "serious misconduct because the dignity of [Mr Bajarunas] was violated", the tribunal heard. Mr Hussey appealed the sanction imposed, a final written warning. However, the senior human resources officer who heard the appeal, Mary White, decided to upgrade the sanction to summary dismissal, the tribunal was told. Ms White gave evidence that the 12-page document showed Mr Hussey's remark was "not a heat-of-the-moment type of thing". "This was all put in writing, that he thought [Martynas Bajarunas] was useless, and he was giving out about other managers," she said, adding that it was "inappropriate behaviour to call someone 'useless'". She believed re-location was "not really an option" as there was "no remorse and no apology". Ms White agreed when Mr Cullen put it to her that bullying was "inappropriate repetitive behaviour". Mr Cullen put it to the witness that there was a single allegation that his client "called someone useless" and asked whether she regarded that as "a dismissible offence". "Yes," Ms White said. Mr Hussey's further appeal of the sanction was upheld by a second company appeals officer. Adjudicator Eileen Campbell wrote in her decision that the final written warning "should have remained the sanction and should not have been elevated". The reason for escalating the sanction to summary dismissal had "not been justified or explained to any degree of satisfaction" by Tesco, she wrote. "I do not condone in any way the complainant's behaviour towards the line manager, which is unacceptable on any level," she wrote. However, she concluded Tesco had "failed to requirement for reasonableness" set out in the Unfair Dismissals Act. Upholding Mr Hussey's complaint, she rejected the union's application for full reinstatement – a remedy which would have meant the employer was liable to pay Mr Hussey back wages from the point of dismissal. Instead, Ms Campbell directed Tesco to re-engage the worker in employment by mid-August this year, with afinal written warning to remain on his personnel file for a year. She directed that the period since his Mr Hussey's dismissal be treated as unpaid suspension. Closing submissions In a closing submission, Dajana Sinik of IBEC, for the employer, said she would have liked to ask Mr Hussey why he wanted his job back in a company "that he alleges exploits its employees" and that it was "disappointing" that he did not testify. She argued the document produced by Mr Hussey showed a "breakdown" in the employment relationship. Mr Cullen argued the case against Mr Hussey was a "cynical" attempt to "silence a genuine grievance". He said his client "did not in fact bully or harass his manager but merely tried to highlight on-going concerns. including a request to change line managers". "The concept of bullying and harassment has been weaponised against the complainant in a fait accompli; management circling the wagons," he added. "Their way of dealing with a problem… was to get rid of the problem, the complainant. It is submitted the emperor does not like being told that he isn't wearing any clothes," Mr Cullen said.
Irish Times
4 days ago
- Irish Times
Ice cream parlour worker pestered for dates by colleague gets €5,000 for sexual harassment
A former employee of popular Dublin ice cream parlour Spilt Milk, who said she quit after months of sexual harassment from a colleague a decade her senior, has secured €5,000 in compensation. Leni Shanahan was awarded the compensation on foot of her complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998 against LN Ice Cream Ltd, the operator of the shop on Drury Street in Dublin 2. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) heard that Ms Shanahan was a 21-year-old student at Trinity College Dublin when she was among the first five workers hired for the opening of the shop in March 2024, under the joint branding of Spilt Milk and Roots Acai. She told a hearing in May that, within a month of starting work together, an older colleague told her they had 'sexual chemistry', asked her out and remarked that he 'thought that sex with me would be electric'. Representing herself before the WRC, Ms Shanahan said she primarily had contact with Mr A, her alleged harasser, who was aged in his early 30s, when they were rostered to work together in the shop's basement production kitchen, where there was no CCTV. In the first week of April 2024, she said Mr A asked her to 'go out with him for a drink' in the course of what she called a 'very inappropriate conversation'. The following week, Mr A 'initiated a conversation about sexual experiences with her'. 'He stated that we had sexual chemistry and he thought that sex with me would be electric,' Ms Shanahan said. In late May of that year, Mr A 'made comments about my physical appearance and commented on my white skin, my light eyes, my hair, my lips and my body, my weight and what I wore – and continued the conversation like that, after I expressed discomfort', she said, before outlining a further series of interactions in the same vein. On her last shift before leaving to take holidays in August 2024, she said Mr A gave her a hug and asked her when she was due back, before telling her: 'I hope next time I see you, you won't be here,' before winking at her. The tribunal heard Ms Shanahan did not return to work as planned and resigned on September 10th that year before writing to her employer complaining of sexual harassment and then filing her WRC complaint. Ms Shanahan said a key factor in her decision to quit and pursue a claim at the WRC was hearing that her alleged harasser had made a remark to her boss, health food entrepreneur Dave Meehan, about becoming 'physically aroused' by her 'flirting'. She said she was told while she was away on leave that Mr Meehan had brought up the remark while talking to another employee, Mr B. 'As it was relayed to me, a comment was made [by Mr Meehan] about how [Mr A] would 'get hard' in conversations with me,' Ms Shanahan said, as she cross-examined her former employer. Mr Meehan said in evidence that, since Ms Shanahan's complaint, he had taken training in human resources. 'It's my first time having a shop in the city centre with such responsibility,' he said. 'I'd like to think for the most part I've led with love and care. I've made mistakes along the way like any other human being. Now I'm better equipped to deal with situations like this. That's all I can say – again, I've apologised, and I really do mean it,' he said. Ms Shanahan said she had 'no idea' there was a complaints process for harassment, as she was 'never shown' any policy document in that regard. She confirmed that she was not alleging sexual harassment on the part of Mr Meehan personally. Steven Murphy, another company director, said Ms Shanahan declined to be interviewed for his internal investigation. 'It was a tough situation, something I've never done before. Leni said one thing, [Mr A] said the other,' he said. There was 'no factual evidence we could find to uphold the complaint', he said, and Mr A had 'refuted' her allegations. In his decision, adjudicator Pat Brady wrote that the business could not rely on the statutory defence of having taken 'reasonable and practical steps' to prevent sexual harassment because there were 'no measures of any sort' in place. He wrote that Mr Murphy's investigation finding that Ms Shanahan's complaints did not meet the criteria of sexual harassment were 'only true if no weight is attached to [her] statements… or less weight than is attached to an alleged perpetrator's denial'. Mr Brady said it was 'unhelpful' that Ms Shanahan had declined to participate in the company probe and 'difficult to understand' why she had not complained sooner. 'These factors provide no comfort to the respondent, whose liability is not diminished, but I propose to take them into account in making my award of compensation,' he added. Upholding the claim, he awarded the worker €5,000.
