A man who said he was discriminated against on the basis of his age at a job interview with Longford County Council has been awarded €8,000 at the Equality Tribunal.
In the case, heard last month, James Murtagh said he had been employed by the council since 1982 as an engineer.
Born in 1944, he was promoted in 2003 from his grade of executive engineer to senior executive engineer. In that year he also replied to an advertisement for a National Roads Authority liaison engineer. It was a two-year contract at senior executive engineer level.
Among the essential criteria identified for the job were a recognised degree or equivalent professional qualification in engineering, seven years' post-qualification experience and a capability to deal efficiently with the various types of engineering work.
Seven candidates were interviewed in January 2004. He was not asked about his extensive experience, and heard on January 21st, 2004 he had been unsuccessful.
The four successful candidates, who were placed on a panel, were all in their 20s or 30s. He said he was deemed not qualified for the job and it was not taken into account that he was already working at the level the job demanded.
Two others were deemed ineligible. Longford County Council rejected the allegation of discrimination.
In her summing up the adjudicating officer said, on looking at the marking scheme used during the interviews, marks appeared to have been awarded in a cursory fashion, "without . . . appropriate consideration being given to their candidacies".
She was satisfied Mr Murtagh had raised a prima facie case of discrimination on the age ground which the council failed to rebut.
Two further cases upheld last month under employment equality legislation concerned allegations of discrimination on the grounds of disability. In one case a prison officer alleged she had been discriminated against because she was not informed of a promotional opportunity while she was on sick leave.
She suffered from work-related anxiety and depression as a result of being bullied by a colleague.
Her employer said at no stage was it suggested she had had a disability and also said there could be no question of appointing anybody who had taken as much sick leave as she had. In her case against the Minister for Justice, she was awarded €8,000.
In another case, a woman with severe back pain said she had been discriminated against by the Public Appointments Service as "reasonable accommodation" had not been made for the fact that she could not use a mouse for extended periods or undertake a lot of typing. Karen Bradford was awarded €6,000
The tribunal found that while the employer did try to accommodate her it was misguided in its approach.
