The High Court dismissed personal injury proceedings brought by former Intel Ireland senior manager Marie Cunningham, finding they duplicated matters raised in her employment equality complaint.
Mr Justice Hedigan’s judgment, delivered on 15 May 2013, concerned a defendant’s motion to strike out Cunningham’s personal injury summons, issued on 22 September 2009. Intel argued that the proceedings were an abuse of process, duplicated her equality claim and had not been prosecuted. The court allowed the motion on the duplication grounds it analysed.
Cunningham had referred a gender discrimination complaint to the Equality Tribunal on 3 December 2008, alleging discrimination in access to employment, promotion or regrading, working conditions and harassment. She said Intel had not allowed her to return to her original job after maternity leave or provided work matching her grade. The Tribunal rejected the complaint in a decision dated 22 February 2012. Her appeal to the Labour Court was ongoing when the High Court ruled.
The judgment compared her Equality Tribunal submissions and evidence with the personal injury pleadings. Those submissions alleged mistreatment beginning when she announced her pregnancy, including micro-management and harassment, and described stress, anxiety, depression and panic attacks. The personal injury claim covered the same alleged conduct, including treatment after she returned to work in August 2008, and sought compensation for stress and related health problems.
Justice Hedigan held that the two claims arose from the same alleged workplace mistreatment. He found the distinction Cunningham had drawn between events before and after her return to work was artificial. The judgment said section 101(2)(a) of the Employment Equality Act and the rule against abusive repeat litigation required claims arising from the same circumstances to be brought in one set of proceedings, absent special circumstances.
The judge said the Labour Court could award compensation for the alleged injury and consider medical reports. Intel had also stated in open court that it would not oppose Cunningham raising complaints dating from her pregnancy announcement in the Labour Court. The High Court said dismissal of the personal injury proceedings did not remove her right to seek a remedy through that equality process.
The judgment also criticised the practice of issuing proceedings and leaving them dormant for years while other proceedings conclude. It did not determine whether the alleged discrimination or injuries occurred; the equality appeal remained ongoing.