The Circuit Court has allowed a school board’s appeal against a Workplace Relations Commission decision that found it had discriminated against a father when his daughter was enrolled without his consent.
In a judgment delivered on 25 April 2022, Judge John O’Connor found the father had not established a prima facie case that the school treated him less favourably because he was a man. The appeal was under section 28 of the Equal Status Acts.
The daughter’s mother enrolled her in the school for the 2020/21 year after the family moved into the school’s area. The parents are divorced. The father objected to the enrolment and argued that the school should have obtained his consent as well. The school said it followed its admissions policy and had no court order directing where the child should attend.
The WRC adjudication officer had found that the father made out a prima facie case of gender discrimination, which the school had not rebutted. The Commission awarded him €3,000 and directed the board to review its admissions policy to ensure equality principles were applied to both parents.
On appeal, the school argued there was no evidence that it treated fathers differently from mothers. Its principal told the court that applications could be signed by a mother, father or both, and that the school handled them in the same way regardless of which parent applied. The principal said both parents received information about the child’s progress and parent-teacher meetings. The child remained enrolled.
The court said a gender discrimination claim requires evidence connecting the alleged treatment to gender, including evidence that a person of another gender would have been treated more favourably in similar circumstances. It concluded that the school did not operate a discriminatory admissions practice favouring female parents and that the father had not shown less favourable treatment on account of his gender.
The judge accepted that the father was a legal guardian, but said that status did not automatically give a parent the right to require a school to refuse a child’s admission without the other parent’s consent. The court treated the case as an appeal about gender discrimination, rather than a determination of the parents’ family law dispute about schooling.
Because no prima facie case was established, the court said it did not need to consider the other legal principles discussed in the judgment. It allowed the school board’s appeal. The judgment does not state a replacement compensation award or a separate order about the admissions policy.