The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by the County Louth Vocational Education Committee, now known as the Louth and Meath Education and Training Board, over how an Equality Tribunal inquiry into a discrimination complaint should proceed.
The Court did not decide whether alleged incidents notified after the statutory time limit could themselves support a finding of discrimination for redress. It held that the equality officer had not yet ruled on that issue and should decide it in the first instance. The Court said it would be premature to intervene before she did so.
Pearse Brannigan, a former teacher employed by the VEC from 1981 to 2007, complained to the Tribunal in August 2006 that he had been discriminated against on grounds of sexual orientation. His complaint form identified two alleged incidents, in December 2005 and March 2006. In submissions made in 2007 and 2009, he raised other alleged incidents, some dating to the late 1990s.
The VEC argued that the inquiry should be confined to matters referred within the six-month statutory period. The equality officer, Valerie Murtagh, declined to decide the objection before hearing the evidence. The VEC sought judicial review, and the inquiry was adjourned during the proceedings and stayed pending their outcome. The High Court dismissed the application in 2009; the VEC appealed on the scope and timing issue.
The Supreme Court explained that evidence of older events might be considered as background or for another relevant purpose, even if those events could not themselves ground a discrimination finding for redress. Whether the historical material could be treated as part of the complaint for redress purposes remained for the Tribunal to decide. The Court expressly declined to endorse the High Court’s views on whether the later submissions amounted to further particulars or a lawful amendment.
The appeal concerned the Tribunal’s procedure and jurisdiction, not the merits of Brannigan’s discrimination complaint. The Court made no finding that discrimination occurred, and did not rule on the admissibility or ultimate use of the historical evidence. It ordered that the inquiry resume, with the way it proceeds left to the equality officer.