The Workplace Relations Commission has formally dismissed a complaint of race, gender, and intersectional discrimination brought by a former customer service agent against her former employer, The AA.

In a decision issued by adjudication officer Breiffni O’Neill on August 5th the WRC ruled that the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination within the statutory time frame required under the Employment Equality Acts.

The Employment Equality Acts 1998 – 2015 outlaw discrimination in a wide range of employment and employment-related areas.

The areas covered include:

  • Equal pay
  • Recruitment
  • Training and work experience
  • Promotion or re-grading
  • Terms and conditions of employment
  • Classification of posts
  • Collective agreements
  • Dismissal

The legislation outlaws workplace discrimination based on nine characteristics:

  • Gender (including pregnancy)
  • Civil status
  • Family status
  • Age
  • Sexual orientation
  • Disability
  • Race
  • Religion
  • Membership of the Traveller community

The complainant, commenced employment with the respondent company on August 19th 2024. Her role as a customer service agent was subject to a standard 6 month probationary period. The employment culminating in her dismissal on October 31st 2024.

According to the complainant’s submissions, minor infractions such as lateness were met with harsher disciplinary measures than those applied to her male peers. A central pillar of her gender discrimination claim rested on a remark allegedly made by her supervisor, who stated that her performance was “nowhere near where the boys are.”

She also pointed to several post-dismissal events, including:

  • Misspelling of her surname in employer’s Labour Court submissions dated October 22nd 2025,
  • Employer describing her Labour Court compensation award of one month’s salary as a “goodwill gesture” in subsequent correspondence,
  • Ongoing refusal by the firm to acknowledge the psychological harm caused.

The complainant lodged her equality complaint with the WRC on January 6th 2026, 14 months later. Under the Acts, claims must generally be lodged within six months.

To bridge this gap, the complainant argued that her claims formed part of a “continuing act” of discrimination that extended past her employment.

The respondent denied all allegations of discrimination and maintained that the WRC lacked jurisdiction to hear the case due to the lapsed statutory time limits.

Adjudication Officer Breiffni O’Neill determined that the substantive claims relating to her treatment during employment fell outside this mandatory statutory window, rendering them time-barred.

While acknowledging that the misspelled surname on October 22nd 2025 fell within the time frame, O’Neill found it fell far short of establishing discrimination, “An administrative or typographical error in the spelling of a surname, without more, is not capable on the facts of this case of supporting an inference of race discrimination,” the decision noted.

 

NB – This is a guide for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have an issue requiring legal advice, please contact any of the team at Nolan Farrell & Goff LLP, whose numbers can be found on our website www.nfg.ie, or email info@nfg.ie.