15/04/2025

SPRING 2025 LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

The Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2024

On 15th January 2025, the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth introduced the Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2024. Currently at the General Scheme stage, the Bill is undergoing refinement before progressing through Ireland’s legislative process in the Oireachtas. With the goal of fostering equality, inclusivity, and transparency, the proposed amendments main areas are:

• Pay transparency.
• Intersectional discrimination (referred to as dual discrimination in Great Britain the concept for which was introduced in the Equality Act 2010 but has not yet been brought into force).
• Recruitment practices.

This law is introduced to ensure that Irish equality laws (including the Employment Equality Act 1998 and Equal Status Act 2000) are in keeping with European Union Directives like the Pay Transparency Directive. The Bill is heralded as combatting discrimination and promoting fairness in the workplace.

Key Provisions and Proposed Changes

1. Pay Transparency

To comply with the EU’s Pay Transparency Directive, which must be implemented by June 2026, the Bill proposes significant changes to ensure equitable pay practices.

Employers will be:

• Required to disclose salary levels or ranges in job advertisements. While specifics regarding the depth of this disclosure are yet to be determined, the provision aims to eliminate loopholes such as overly broad salary ranges.
• Prohibited from requesting pay history or current salary details from job applicants. This measure is designed to prevent perpetuating pay gaps or discrimination based on previous salaries. For example, it safeguards individuals who may have experienced historical pay discrimination from carrying that bias into new employment.

These measures aim to address longstanding issues, including gender-based pay disparities, and foster greater transparency in remuneration practices.

2. Recruitment Criteria

The Bill requires employers to ensure:

• Job requirements are proportionate and objectively justified, so as to avoid indirect discrimination against protected groups.
• Recruitment processes are free from bias, providing equal opportunities to all candidates. Employers may be encouraged to implement initiatives targeting underrepresented groups, such as women, individuals with disabilities, or ethnic minorities.

To support compliance, employers may need to collect and report diversity data on applicants and hires, ensuring accountability in promoting workplace equality.

3. Intersectional Discrimination

When implemented the Bill will make a significant development in equality legislation by explicitly recognising intersectional discrimination where employees may face discrimination due to overlapping identities. For example, being from a different race and female. This is permitted by amendments to Section 3 of the Equal Status Act clarifying that discrimination can occur on multiple grounds simultaneously and expands employers’ obligations to ensure fair and equitable treatment in the workplace.

While the Bill strengthens protections for employees, it will also introduce new challenges for businesses. Intersectional discrimination can be more complex to assess, as mistreatment may stem from a combination of factors rather than a single characteristic. This increases the need for enhanced HR policies and specialised training to educate and ensure that potential issues are dealt with before they escalate. Additionally, employers may need to adapt workplace policies and procedures to accommodate multi-ground claims.

4. Positive Action Measures

The Bill enables employers to take proactive steps toward increasing participation of underrepresented groups. Expanding beyond gender-based initiatives, employers can develop targeted recruitment programs designed to promote equality across various protected grounds.

Additionally, amendments to the Employment Equality Acts require objective justification for specific qualifications tied to roles, addressing potential indirect discrimination linked to educational, technical, or professional prerequisites.

Members maybe aware the in the US, President Trump signed a number of Executive Orders considered to be a roll back on EDI initiatives and is particularly targeting initiatives aimed at redressing under representation. It will remain to be seen if this mandate in US continues in force and how it will co-exist with any companies operating in US and Ireland.

5. Extended Timeframes for Lodging Complaints

The Bill proposes extending complaint deadlines with the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) across several key acts:

• Employment Equality Act 1998: Current time limits of six months for filing discrimination claims are extended to 12 months, with an additional six-month extension for reasonable cause.
• Equal Status Act 2000-2018: Notification deadlines for discrimination claims are increased from two months to four, with extensions possible for reasonable cause. Filing deadlines with the WRC are similarly extended from six to 12 months.
• Maternity Protection Act 1994: Adjustments ensure claims related to pregnancy or breastfeeding discrimination can be filed within reasonable timeframes, even up to two years after pregnancy-related issues arise.

Again the extended deadlines are considered as providing greater access to justice for complainants but may pose challenges for employers by lengthening the period during which claims can arise.

Implications for Employers

Employers will need to adopt comprehensive measures to meet the new requirements under the Equality Bill. Key actions include:

• Developing clear anti-discrimination policies and training programs for managers to handle harassment or bias complaints effectively.
• Improving recruitment processes to promote fairness and transparency while addressing underrepresentation of certain groups.
• Ensuring compliance with pay transparency obligations, particularly in job advertisements and hiring practices.
• Training Staff

Additionally, the recognition of intersectional discrimination and extended timeframes for lodging complaints reinforces the need for employers to proactively assess and address workplace practices that may unintentionally perpetuate inequality.

Final Thoughts

The Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2024 reflects Ireland’s continuing commitment to advancing equality in the workplace. As the Bill progresses through the legislative process, we will keep you informed.

1. Gender Pay Gap Reporting Ireland- Online Portal Launch

Minister for Children, Disability and Equality, Norma Foley, has announced that the new gender pay gap reporting portal will be launched in Autumn 2025.

Come the 1^st June 2025, employers with 50 or more employees will be required to publish a gender pay gap report on the online portal.

This portal will bring reports from all private and public sector employers together for the first time. This portal will also be fully searchable by the public.

The current position is that in-scope employers are only required to publish their gender pay gap report on their own website. It is estimated that approximately 6,000 organisations will now be required to report their gender pay gap on the online portal.

Employers must choose a date in June each year as their “snapshot date” for collecting the relevant data. They will then have five months from this date to provide their Gender Pay Gap Report. The reporting date has also been brought forward by one month, moving the deadline for reporting from December to November each year.

CASE LAW UPDATE

1. An Employee v A Café (ADJ-00047296)

Sexual Harassment in Workplace

In a significant ruling (ADJ-00047296), the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) awarded €12,000 in compensation to a former café worker following a complaint of sexual harassment arising from a work-related event. This decision sheds light on employer liability and the need for robust anti-harassment policies.

Background of the Case

 The complainant, who was employed by the café for 12 weeks in 2023, alleged she was sexually harassed by her manager, Mr. X, during a night out attended exclusively by café staff. The incident occurred when Mr. X walked the complainant home, allegedly pushing her against a wall and kissing her. The complainant stated she rejected his advance and pushed him away.

Following the incident, the complainant claimed Mr. X became hostile and critical of her work. She described experiencing stress due to the situation and eventually resigned from her position in June 2023. She further alleged that her concerns were not adequately addressed by management despite her attempts to escalate the issue.

Mr. X, however, argued the kiss was accidental and that he apologised immediately. He maintained that any criticism of the complainant’s work was due to her performance, which did not meet the café’s standards.

WRC’s Findings

 After examining the evidence, the Adjudicator concluded that the incident of sexual harassment occurred as described by the complainant. He noted that her actions—such as discussing the matter with colleagues and contacting senior management—supported her account.

The Adjudicator determined that Mr. X’s behaviour fell within the definition of sexual harassment under the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015. Crucially, it was ruled that the night out, although not officially organised by the café, fell within the scope of employment due to its exclusive attendance by staff and its connection to the workplace.

The café’s legal defence argued that employers should not be discouraged from allowing social events for fear of liability. However, the WRC held that the café had failed to take reasonably practicable steps to prevent workplace harassment. This failure included a lack of training for managers, ineffective communication of anti-harassment policies, and inadequate support for the complainant.

 Outcome

 The WRC awarded the complainant €12,000, noting this was close to the maximum compensation available for such claims. However, it dismissed her allegations of workplace retaliation and confirmed her resignation was not considered constructive dismissal.

 Lessons for Employers

This case highlights the importance of robust workplace policies on harassment and proactive measures to prevent such incidents. Employers should ensure:

• Clear communication and accessibility of anti-harassment policies.
• Proper training for all staff, especially managers, on handling harassment complaints.
• Effective mechanisms for employees to report harassment safely.

 Anonymisation in WRC Decisions

 Notably, the WRC anonymised this decision, aligning with a recent Supreme Court judgment in another case. The Adjudicator acknowledged the potential for reputational harm arising from published rulings and deemed anonymity appropriate to protect the parties involved.

This case serves as a reminder that while social interactions among staff can foster camaraderie, employers must remain vigilant in ensuring a safe and respectful environment for all employees—inside and outside the workplace.

2. Tom Ronan V Commissioner for An Garda Siochana, Ireland and the Attorney General (High Court)

Employment disputes in Ireland often involve complex legal procedures, with injunctions emerging as a crucial mechanism for addressing issues like wrongful termination, discrimination, or breaches of employment law.

The ongoing case of Tom Ronan exemplifies the intricacies of this process, particularly in the context of age discrimination and mandatory retirement.

Background

Mr. Ronan, a civilian Garda driver, faced mandatory retirement at the age of 70 despite his protest that the decision constituted age discrimination. His complaint was upheld by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), who ruled that forcing Mr. Ronan to retire was discriminatory.

The WRC decision provided for re-engagement within four weeks of the ruling and extension of his employment for an additional three years.

Interestingly, while WRC acknowledged the objective justification for the mandatory retirement age, he found it unreasonable in Mr. Ronan’s case due to the financial hardship the retirement would impose.

On 14 November 2024, the first defendant appealed the WRC determination to the Labour Court and did not re-engage Mr. Ronan as directed by the WRC. Instead, the defendant sought Mr. Ronan’s consent for a stay on the WRC determination and formally requested a stay from the Labour Court on 20 November 2024.

The Labour Court, via a letter dated 27 November 2024, stated it had no jurisdiction to grant a stay. It clarified that any appeal to the Labour Court results in a de novo (fresh) hearing, and the WRC decision carries no binding weight during this process.

Mr. Ronan requested re-engagement in line with the WRC determination. However  the defendant declined, citing section 43(3) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 which provide that WRC determinations are unenforceable while under appeal.

Mr. Ronan -initiated proceedings on 29 January 2025 and secured an interim injunction on 30 January 2025 to enforce the WRC determination and require re-engagement, allowing him to resume his duties temporarily.

 On 4 February 2025, the defendants then filed an application to discharge the interim injunction. The court consolidated both applications, which were subsequently heard on 6 February 2025.

However, when Mr. Ronan applied for an interlocutory injunction to maintain the interim arrangement until the Labour Court’s hearing, his request was denied on 14th February 2025.

That High Court held that:

• Age discrimination claims should be pursued through statutory mechanisms, namely the WRC and Labour Court.
• Granting an injunction would interfere with the Labour Court’s decision-making role.
• Section 43(3) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 clarifies that WRC orders cannot be enforced by the District Court while under appeal.
• Exceptional circumstances are required to justify granting relief through an injunction when statutory remedies are available, and no such circumstances existed in this case.

The High Court’s decision reflects the limits of judicial intervention in statutory frameworks, emphasising the integrity of processes outlined in employment legislation.

Injunctions play a vital role in Irish employment disputes, offering temporary relief while awaiting the resolution of legal claims. They typically fall into two categories:

Interim Injunctions: Short-term measures granted without full arguments from all parties. These aim to preserve the status quo until the dispute is resolved.

Interlocutory Injunctions: Longer-term relief granted after hearing arguments from all parties. These remain in effect until the case’s conclusion.

For injunctions to succeed in employment disputes, claimants must typically satisfy three criteria:

• There is a serious issue to be tried.
• Damages would not suffice as compensation.
• The balance of convenience favours granting the injunction.

This case underscores the limits of using injunctions to enforce WRC orders under appeal. It highlights the principle that statutory remedies must be exhausted before judicial intervention. Moreover, Justice Mulcahy’s ruling illustrates that courts are reluctant to grant injunctions that could pre-emptively determine the outcome of statutory procedures.

Implications for Employers

Mandatory retirement ages and age discrimination remain highly complex areas of employment law.

Employers should:

• Seek legal advice before enforcing mandatory retirement, particularly when employees request to extend their employment.
• Ensure compliance with anti-discrimination legislation to mitigate the risk of disputes.
• Understand the potential implications of WRC rulings and appeals, including the limits on enforcement of decisions under the Workplace Relations Act 2015.

Looking Ahead

Mr. Ronan’s efforts to appeal the High Court’s refusal of an interlocutory injunction will be closely watched, as the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal may weigh in on the broader implications for employment law. Additionally, the Labour Court’s ruling on the WRC decision will provide further clarity on mandatory retirement and age discrimination.