The High Court has declared that an Army Engineer Officer, Diane Byrne, qualified for fixed-period promotion to Commandant from 28 May 2013, after finding that she was wrongly left out of the promotion process while on maternity leave.
In a judgment delivered on 25 July 2016, Mr Justice Eagar found that the respondents had failed to comply with Defence Force Regulations A15. He also declared that they breached provisions of the EU Equal Treatment Directive concerning pregnancy and maternity leave. The court did not decide Byrne’s claim for lost earnings; it said submissions on damages would be heard later.
Byrne had completed nine years as a Captain by 28 May 2013. Four male officers from her cohort were promoted to Commandant in August that year while she was on maternity leave. The respondents said a management office had considered her ineligible because she had not completed specified courses, and she was consequently not assessed by an interview board.
The regulation required satisfactory service, assessment by an interview board appointed by the Chief of Staff, and completion of a standard course or an alternative route: a determination by the Chief of Staff that the officer had reached a satisfactory standard. The court noted there was no allegation that Byrne’s service was unsatisfactory, and she had not been invited to an interview board. It found that the Chief of Staff’s role had no legislative basis for delegation to the management office and that Byrne had no opportunity to make her case.
The court rejected the respondents’ argument that she should first have used the Defence Act’s internal complaints procedure. It found that procedure offered little adequate remedy in this case.
On discrimination, the court said Byrne was on maternity leave when the request to convene a promotion board was made. It found she had been excluded from the promotion process as a result of being on maternity leave, and that the respondents had not discharged the burden of showing there was no breach of equal treatment. The declarations addressed her qualification and promotion date; the judgment did not make an order for back pay or quantify any damages.