An academic who claimed she was unfairly turned down for a promotion because assessors “ignored” the impact of past discrimination on her career trajectory has failed in an equality claim against University of Galway.
In a decision published on Tuesday, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) rejected a complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998 brought by Mary Dempsey, an assistant professor at the university’s engineering department.
She had accused the institution of gender and age bias, claims denied by the university.
It follows a ruling by the Equality Tribunal, the WRC’s predecessor body, 11 years ago in which she secured the maximum allowed award of €81,000 in compensation for gender and disability discrimination – along with reinstatement as a lecturer.
READ MORE
At a hearing in May, Ms Dempsey’s trade union rep, Marie O’Connor of SIPTU, said her client had set out in an application for promotion to a professorship in 2022 that she had been working under “discriminatory contracts with restrictions on research activities, teaching loads, lack of funding [and an] inability to supervise postgraduate students”.
Despite this, the university’s academic promotions committee had “ignored” these constraints when it assessed her research output, she further submitted.
Ms O’Connor argued that assessing her client on her duties during the “discriminatory period” was a continuation of the earlier discrimination.
Ms Dempsey had joined the university as a temporary teaching appointee in 1994 and kept working on a series of annual contracts until 2003, when she received a fixed-term contract as a lecturer, the tribunal heard.
In 2005, the university “unilaterally altered her contract” and took away both her job title as a lecturer and her research duties, but was reinstated as a lecturer in 2015 following the Equality Tribunal ruling.
The tribunal heard that out of 14 candidates who were promoted during the process, eight were women aged between 48 and 50 and six were men aged 45 to 47.
“Systemic gender bias persists, especially in promotion processes,” Ms O’Connor submitted – pointing to female representation of 15 per cent in personal professor grade and 3 per cent at established professor grade in science and engineering.
Ms O’Connor also argued that her client was discriminated against on age grounds due to support programmes “benefiting younger female academics but excluding her”.
Kevin Feighery of IBEC, appearing for the university, submitted that Ms Dempsey had fallen short in three areas of the assessment for promotion relating to her standing in teaching and learning, her funding, and her research output.
Adjudicator Peter O’Brien wrote in his decision: Claims regarding discrimination concerning promotions are always difficult to consider as there is huge precedent for the WRC not to interfere in a promotion decision of an employer, unless there is blatant discrimination.”
He noted that Ms Dempsey had received “significant and appropriate compensation” in her previous case, and noted her position that the previous discrimination against her should have been taken into account.
However, Mr O’Brien wrote that a scoring exercise attempting to “equal the playing field” in terms of her service as a lecturer could have led to other candidates claiming they were discriminated against.
“The other candidates should not be disadvantaged because of the complainant’s past situation, which she was appropriately compensated for, and the complainant is not entitled to individual and preferential treatment, based on generic and unsupported claims of discrimination on age and gender,” he wrote.
He found Ms Dempsey “was not discriminated against” and rejected her complaint.
