A PRIMARY SCHOOL has been ordered to pay €85,000 in discrimination compensation to a teacher after a school principal said to her at the end of a job interview “you really should enjoy every moment at home with the baby”.

In the case, Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) Adjudicator Patricia Owens has ordered the Board of Management (BOM) of Co Westmeath primary school St Tola’s NS to pay the €85,000 compensation to teacher Emily Williams after finding that she was discriminated against on the grounds of family status.

Owens found that Williams was discriminated against as a result of a Contract of Indefinite Duration (CID) being awarded to a colleague who was not on maternity leave and discriminated against during the interview process for the fixed term contract, including the principal’s “at home with the baby” comment.

At the interview for a fixed term contract for a teaching post at St Tola’s NS at the Parochial House of Devlin on 18 June 2024, Williams stated that the school principal, Eileen Smyth, congratulated her on the birth of her daughter, stating “you really should enjoy every moment at home with the baby”.

Williams told the WRC that she felt it was unprofessional to discuss her maternity leave in front of the interview panel and that the comment seemed to be a hint at her not receiving the position.

She stated that the following day, she was informed via email that her application was unsuccessful.

Williams worked as a teacher at the school from 2022 to August 2024, when her contract expired.

At the WRC hearing, Williams stated that she was caught completely off guard when Smyth, towards the end of the interview, had asked about her baby and had advised that she should enjoy every minute at home with the baby.

Represented in the case by Brian McGrath and Kevin Fitzpatrick of the INTO, Williams said that she didn’t think it should have been brought up in front of the other members of the interview board, which included BOM chairperson Fr Seamus Heaney and an independent assessor, Ann Fitzpatrick.

Williams contended that to her, it felt like Smyth was reminding the others that she was on maternity leave.

She felt that there had been no need to offer congratulations as Smyth had texted her earlier offering her congratulations.

Williams told the hearing that she believed she was unsuccessful for the fixed term contract due to the comment being made by the principal. 

Under cross examination at the hearing and asked how this could be the case, Williams responded that she felt it was that she should have been at home and not applying for the job and that it also made all of the interview members aware of the fact that she was on maternity leave.

Williams stated that it certainly left the potential open for that.

On behalf of the BOM, MP Guinness BL (instructed by solicitor Lorcan Maule of Mason for Hayes & Curran Solicitors) put it to Williams that as she had just had a baby and this was the first occasion the principal had met her since, was it not appropriate for her to congratulate her and wish her well, and that this was not a matter of discrimination.

Williams responded that it would have been if it had been a private conversation. She said this would have been more credible and it would have had no impact.

In her findings, Owens concluded that the school principal, Eileen Smyth, made inappropriate comments relating to Williams’ family status in the interview process for a fixed-term contract and that no such comment was made to Comparator B, who had a different family status.

Owens found that Smyth’s comment “was made before the competition was scored and may have had an adverse impact on the outcome of the interview process”.

In relation to the comments made by Smyth, Owens said: “I appreciate that it may well have been her intention to pass on her well wishes to the complainant. However, it cannot be said that the interview process had been completed at that time.”

Owens said: “Even if questioning had been disposed of, the formality of ending the interview itself had not been done and more importantly, the scoring of the candidates was still outstanding.

“I can only conclude that it was entirely inappropriate for those comments relating to the complainant’s family status to have been addressed to her during the process.”

Owens also found that the school BOM failed to provide any evidence to explain how the interview board members arrived at the conclusions for the scores attributed to the candidates in circumstances where Comparator B had less experience than Williams and to demonstrate that the comments made did not have an adverse effect on the outcome.

Owens said that she considered the absence of such evidence to be fatal to the BOM’s defence of the inference of discrimination.

In evidence at the hearing, Smyth stated that she made the comment at the end of the interview, after everyone had finished questioning Williams.

She stated that as a mother of three children herself, she understood how busy it can be and that this was the first time had met Williams after the birth of her baby.

Smyth stated that it was an empathetic comment and that the comment was in no way intended to “sway” the other members of the interview board.

Smyth stated that she made a congratulatory comment at the end of the interview, as one mother to another.

In evidence at the hearing, BOM chairperson Fr Seamus Heaney stated that the “baby at home” comment was made after the interview had finished, that he didn’t think there was anything inappropriate and that he took it as simply a friendly comment.

Asked if he would accept that the “baby at home” comment was made in order to highlight that Williams was on maternity leave, Fr Heaney responded ‘No’ and said that he didn’t think at the time that the comment was made in order to influence the panel.