A FEMALE BARTENDER who suffers from an extremely painful condition unique to women has won a discrimination case against her employer.
In the case, the Workplace Relations Commission has ordered that a publican pay the woman – referred to in the ruling as Ms D - €20,000 after it found that he discriminated against her on the grounds of gender and disability.
Ms D suffers from endometriosis, a disorder in which the tissue that ordinarily lines the uterus grows in other parts of the body such as the ovaries, the fallopian tubes and on the bladder, causing chronic pain.
Endometriosis – which can also cause infertility – affects one out of every 10 women, although only a fraction of those cases will ever be diagnosed.
The case before the commission described how Ms D underwent a surgical procedure for the condition in October 2015 and was supplied with a doctor’s certificate stating that she was only capable of light duties and to not undertake any lifting on returning to work.
However, on returning to work, she found that her hours were reduced sharply.
Ms D asked why she couldn’t continue with her normal hours in the bar, which wasn’t named in the ruling, and was told that it was her employer’s opinion that the work involved heavy lifting.
She was then handed a letter which stated: “From a health and safety point of view, we will be unable to offer you any work until you inform us that you are fit for work.”
Prior to the surgical procedure, as she was the only female member of staff, Ms D had been asked to carry out room-cleaning duties at the business.
Ms D told the hearing that when the two other, male bartenders came in for work she was sent off to do the rooms.
She said that work was physically much more demanding than her role in the bar as she was required to carry heavy linen, lift heavy mattresses when making beds and carry heavy items up three flights of stairs.
Ms D said that she found the work extremely demanding because of her endometriosis.
Her hours began to be reduced significantly in comparison with those of her two male colleagues.
The two male workers, who took up employment after the woman, were consistently provided with full-time hours in their roles as bar staff, leaving Ms D only with whatever remaining hours were available.
In her decision that Ms D was discriminated against on the grounds of gender, adjudication officer Niamh O’Carroll Kelly said that the employer had provided no reasons that could objectively justify why the female worker was treated less favourably than her male counterparts.
O’Carroll Kelly also found that the publican discriminated against Ms D on the grounds of disability after finding that he was fully aware she had undergone a small surgical procedure and was certified fit to return to work with the caveat that she only carry out light duties for one week.
The commission’s officer also found that the employer took no steps whatsoever to consult with Ms D or her medical advisers in order to ascertain what reasonable accommodations or appropriate measures could have assisted her in maintaining her work role.
O’Carroll Kelly said that, without any knowledge, assessment, consultation, or even reading the doctor’s certificate submitted, the employer made “what can only be described as a bizarre decision” to take Ms D off the roster, which led to the woman resigning her position shortly afterwards.
O’Carroll Kelly found that Ms D had “established a prima facie case of discrimination on the grounds of gender and disability” and awarded her €20,000.
She found that the employer had failed to objectively justify cutting the woman’s hours. Furthermore, the employer had failed to provide reasonable accommodations in relation to Ms D’s disability.