The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by Louth/Meath Education and Training Board over the scope of an ongoing employment discrimination inquiry involving a former teacher, saying it was premature for a court to decide the time-limit issue before the Equality Officer had ruled on it.
The former teacher, Pearse Brannigan, complained to the Equality Tribunal in August 2006 that the board had discriminated against, harassed and victimised him because of his sexual orientation. His complaint form identified events in December 2005 and March 2006. In a further submission in September 2007, he described other alleged events dating from 1997 until he stopped working for the board in August 2006.
The board argued that the Equality Officer could not investigate allegations outside the original complaint or matters said to have occurred beyond the statutory time limit. It sought declarations restricting the inquiry, as well as an injunction to halt it except in relation to the two events identified in the original form.
The Officer had allowed evidence about the earlier events to be heard, but swore that she had not decided whether they fell within the lawful scope of the inquiry. She said she considered it more efficient to hear the evidence together and then decide the relevant factual and legal issues. The Supreme Court noted that the Officer’s account had not been disproved and that the inquiry had not reached a final determination.
Justice John MacMenamin said the courts should not pre-empt the Equality Officer’s consideration of issues that remained unresolved. The Court did not decide whether the additional allegations were within the Officer’s jurisdiction or whether the statutory time limits barred any claim. It also made clear the judgment expressed no view on the factual material or the legal issues to be determined in the investigation.
The Court set aside any parts of the High Court judgment that could be read as deciding those questions in advance. It dismissed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Equality Officer for further investigation and a final determination in accordance with law. The Court upheld the High Court order to the extent that it found the application premature.