The High Court refused Iarnród Éireann’s judicial review challenge to an Equality Officer’s finding that the company discriminated against Monica Murphy in her conditions of employment on gender grounds.
Mr Justice Hedigan delivered judgment on 27 July 2010. The challenge concerned only that part of the Equality Officer’s 13 November 2009 decision. The officer had also found discrimination in access to promotion and victimisation, but those findings were outside the challenge described in the judgment.
Ms Murphy had complained to the Equality Tribunal that, after returning from a career break in January 2003, her career had deteriorated because of gender discrimination. The judgment records that she began working with C.I.E. in 1971 and later worked in its marketing department. The Tribunal received her complaint in March 2007 and held an oral hearing in December 2008.
At the hearing, the Equality Officer requested documents about budgets available to certain colleagues and professional fees paid for the manager’s direct reports. Iarnród Éireann agreed to provide them but did not supply those categories. The company gave varying explanations, including inadvertence, uncertainty about whether documents existed, and difficulty compiling the information.
The Equality Officer drew inferences from the missing material. Iarnród Éireann argued that the officer should have used statutory powers to compel production instead, and that the company should have been warned that inferences might be drawn.
The Court rejected the challenge. It said the budget material related to only one part of the reasoning: the officer had also relied on evidence that Ms Murphy was isolated from the marketing department, had no staff reporting to her, had no marketing budget, and lacked a proper job title. The Court considered an inference that other colleagues had budgets reasonable in light of the company’s failure to provide the requested information or explain that failure.
On professional subscriptions, the judgment noted that Iarnród Éireann had not disputed before the Equality Officer that male colleagues’ subscriptions continued to be paid. The Court said no inference was needed to establish an undisputed point.
The Court held that an Equality Officer may accept an informal agreement to provide documents and may draw reasonable inferences if a party later fails to honour it. It also found that the challenged inferences were a small part of the reasoning and had not been shown to be clearly wrong or essential to the decision. The judicial review application was refused.