A High Court judge has awarded €66,000 to a barista after concluding she was discriminated against when she was dismissed from her job while pregnant.
Graham O’Sullivan Restaurants said it issued a P45 to Renata Karpicz in error and maintained she was a valued employee who was not dismissed.
However, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty did not accept this, saying the document “clearly” was intended for Ms Karpicz and the attempt to “row back was too little, too late”.
She was supported in her conclusion by the event’s timing and the multiple deliberate and administrative actions to prepare and deliver the document to her and Revenue. The online advertisement for her job the next day works to support this finding, the judge added.
The receipt of her P45 was a dismissal, in all the circumstances, and she was not obliged to seek explanations or to go to mediation, the judge said.
Ms Justice Gearty held that Ms Karpicz is entitled to €41,500 for loss of earnings and maternity benefit caused directly by the “discriminatory dismissal”. She also awarded a further €25,000 for the discriminatory act.
The judge also decided the defendant firm should pay Ms Karpicz’s legal costs for bringing her case in the Circuit Court and successfully defending the company’s appeal of that court’s award.
She noted the Employment Equality Act of 1998 provides for a presumption that the dismissal of a pregnant woman is discrimination on grounds of gender.
Ms Karpicz was hired by Graham O’Sullivan Restaurants in November 2017 and worked as a general assistant and barista. In July 2018, she notified the firm that she was six weeks pregnant.
'There must be something in the water'
At the time, five women of 45 staff were either pregnant or on maternity leave.
The judge said the branch general manager, Geoff Barnes, congratulated Ms Karpicz and said: “There must be something in the water.”
He said he considered the comment to be innocuous, and he was smiling at what he considered to be joyful news.
Ms Karpicz said she perceived he was not happy about the pregnancy and felt his congratulations were fake.
The judge concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, even if done unintentionally, he conveyed that the pregnancy was not welcome news generally. Ms Justice Gearty said the simple facts were that it was logistically difficult for the firm to replace so many of the workforce at one time.
A meeting took place in September 2018, after Ms Karpicz returned from sick leave. The judge said Mr Barnes told the court he reassured her that her job would be waiting for her when she returned to work after maternity leave.
Ms Karpicz’s recollection was that he offered the social welfare system, and to return to work when ready. She decided to take certified sick leave until the end of her pregnancy.
In November, she was told by another manager that there was an envelope for her at the restaurant, which contained her P45. She heard nothing from Mr Barnes and did not attempt to contact anyone in the company until February 2019, the judge said.
The company denied she was dismissed and said she should have raised the receipt of a P45 with her manager. Mr Barnes said he first learnt of the P45 issue when he heard from the Workplace Relations Commission, to which Ms Karpicz had complained.
Ms Justice Gearty said it was “unrealistic” for the company to expect a woman who was physically ill during her pregnancy to have negotiated with the business owner after “unceremoniously” receiving her P45.
If, as the company claims, the P45 was issued in error, it was up to the firm to correct the record, and not Ms Kerpicz to make sure it was indeed intended for her, the judge said.
