Pregnancy Disclosure Followed by Proposed Hours Cut: WRC Awards €10,000 for Discrimination
Employers are entitled to restructure a business when genuine financial or operational circumstances require change.
However, where a significant change to an employee’s working arrangements follows closely after the employee announces a pregnancy, the timing and evidence supporting the decision can become critically important.
A recent Workplace Relations Commission decision provides a useful example.
A dental assistant was awarded €10,000 after the WRC found that she had been treated less favourably on the gender ground arising from her pregnancy.
For employers, the lesson is not that restructuring becomes impossible once an employee announces a pregnancy. It is that the business must be able to clearly evidence why the decision was unrelated to pregnancy.
WRC Case Reference
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00054622
Complaint Reference: CA-00066550-001
Parties: An Employee v An Employer
Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
The published WRC decision was anonymised because evidence concerning family law proceedings formed part of the respondent’s defence.
What happened?
The complainant began working as a part-time dental assistant in 2023.
In July 2024 she received a written contract providing for 18 hours of work per week.
On 17 July 2024, when returning the signed contract, she told management that she was pregnant.
Shortly afterwards, she was informed that a meeting was to take place concerning changes to her working arrangements.
At a meeting on 25 July, she was presented with a proposal for a substantial reduction in her hours.
The WRC considered the close timing between the pregnancy disclosure and the proposed reduction to be sufficiently significant to raise an inference of discrimination.
Timing can shift the burden of proof
Employment equality cases apply a particular burden-of-proof framework.
The employee must first establish facts from which discrimination may reasonably be inferred.
If that threshold is crossed, the burden shifts to the employer to establish that the treatment was not discriminatory.
In this case, the WRC considered the chronology particularly important.
A contract for 18 hours per week had been issued shortly before the pregnancy announcement, followed by a significant proposed reduction shortly afterwards.
The WRC held that the proximity in time “cannot be ignored” and was sufficient to shift the burden to the employer.
The WRC accepted that the business had genuine financial difficulties
Importantly, this was not a case where the WRC simply rejected the employer’s commercial explanation.
The respondent gave evidence that the dental practice had experienced substantial financial difficulties and that restructuring had become necessary.
The WRC accepted that those financial difficulties were genuine.
It also accepted that the orthodontist’s personal circumstances had changed significantly and affected her availability to work.
A genuine business problem, however, does not automatically prove that the particular treatment of an individual employee was unrelated to pregnancy.
The problem was proving the reason for this particular decision
The respondent maintained that reductions and restructuring had already been under consideration before the pregnancy was disclosed.
However, the WRC identified significant evidential gaps.
In particular:
- There was insufficient evidence showing that comparable reductions had been proposed to other employees;
- There was limited documentary evidence showing that the specific reduction affecting the complainant had already been planned;
- The employer had recently issued a contract providing for 18 hours per week;
- Important people involved in the relevant communications and meetings were not called as witnesses; and
- Recruitment advertisements were published while the complainant’s own hours were proposed to be reduced.
For employers, this illustrates an important distinction: a genuine restructuring explanation still needs evidence linking the individual decision to that restructuring.
If restructuring started before the pregnancy announcement, document it
This is probably the strongest practical lesson from the case.
Employers frequently make staffing decisions over a period of weeks or months.
But if an employment decision is challenged later, an employer may need to demonstrate when the decision was first contemplated.
Contemporaneous evidence may include:
- Management meeting notes;
- Financial forecasts;
- Staffing reviews;
- Proposed organisational structures;
- Emails discussing reduced staffing requirements;
- Consultation planning;
- Evidence of comparable changes affecting other staff; and
- The objective criteria used to determine whose hours would change.
“We had already planned it” is much easier to defend when the contemporaneous records actually show that.
Call the people who were actually involved
The WRC also placed importance on the absence of witnesses who had been centrally involved in communications and meetings with the complainant.
The orthodontist gave evidence on behalf of the respondent, but other individuals had been more directly involved in some of the relevant interactions.
They did not give evidence.
Where the employer’s explanation depends on what was discussed, decided or communicated, evidence from the actual decision-makers can be critical.
Consistency across employees matters
The employer argued that the proposed changes formed part of a wider restructuring affecting staff generally.
That type of explanation can be important.
But if the employer relies on a business-wide restructuring, it should be able to demonstrate what happened to other comparable employees.
Useful evidence might show:
- Which roles were affected;
- Which employees had hours reduced;
- What criteria were applied;
- When those decisions were made;
- Whether alternatives were offered; and
- Whether the same methodology was applied consistently.
If the business says “everyone was affected”, it should be ready to produce evidence demonstrating how.
Recruitment activity can undermine a restructuring explanation
Another factor considered by the WRC was evidence that the practice advertised part-time roles while proposing to reduce the complainant’s working hours.
Recruitment does not automatically mean that a restructuring explanation is false.
Different jobs may require different working patterns, qualifications, responsibilities or hours.
But where an employer says that an employee’s hours need to be reduced because less work is available while simultaneously advertising for additional staff, the employer should be able to clearly explain the distinction.
Recruitment decisions and restructuring decisions should tell a consistent story.
Be careful about repeated contact during certified sick leave
The WRC also commented on the level of contact with the complainant while she was medically certified as unfit for work.
Some employer contact during sick leave may be entirely legitimate and necessary.
Employers may need to discuss certification, occupational health, return-to-work arrangements or an ongoing employment process.
However, repeated calls, emails and messages concerning disputed changes can become another feature of the overall factual picture.
Employers should ensure that contact with an employee on certified sick leave is necessary, proportionate and appropriately documented.
Pregnancy requires particular care in employment decision-making
Pregnancy-related discrimination falls within the gender ground under the Employment Equality Acts.
Employers should therefore be particularly careful where changes to:
- Hours;
- Duties;
- Working arrangements;
- Promotion opportunities;
- Redundancy selection;
- Pay;
- Location; or
- Employment status
occur shortly after pregnancy is disclosed.
That does not mean such changes can never happen.
It means the employer should be able to establish a clear, non-discriminatory and evidence-based reason.
What should employers take from this decision?
Before implementing a change affecting a pregnant employee, ask:
- When was the change first contemplated?
- Can we prove that date?
- What objective business reason supports it?
- Are other employees affected?
- Are comparable employees being treated consistently?
- What documentary evidence supports the decision?
- Who actually made and communicated the decision?
- Are those individuals available to give evidence if necessary?
- Does any recruitment activity contradict our stated rationale?
- Have alternatives been genuinely considered?
The WRC award
Having considered the chronology and evidence, the WRC found that the complainant had established a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination and that the respondent had failed to rebut it.
€10,000
Compensation awarded for discrimination on the gender ground arising from pregnancy.
The WRC described the award as just and equitable having regard to the circumstances, including the serious nature of pregnancy discrimination and its effect on the complainant.
The wider lesson for employers
Genuine restructuring and discrimination are not mutually exclusive concepts.
A business may genuinely need to reduce costs or reorganise staffing, but the employer must still be able to demonstrate why a particular employee was affected in the way they were.
If the restructuring really started before the pregnancy announcement, the employer should be able to prove it.
Clear contemporaneous records, consistent treatment, appropriate witnesses and objective decision-making can be critical where a workplace change closely follows disclosure of pregnancy.
This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained in relation to individual circumstances.
