Following a ruling of discrimination, Irish law company, Mason Hayes and Curran, has been directed to revamp disability training for its management and compensate a sacked lawyer suffering from ‘long Covid’ and depressive disorder with €5,000. The firm, representing the fifth-largest legal body in Ireland generating €114 million last year, has also been given a three-month window by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) to educate their senior executives about their policies against discrimination.
The directive follows the determination that Mason Hayes and Curran LLP overlooked the possibility of providing adequate support for senior associate lawyer, Oisín Gourley, who was contending with ‘long Covid’ and depression before concluding that he had not passed his probation and subsequently fired him last year.
On Tuesday, the tribunal specializing in employment disputes discarded additional allegations made by Mr Gourley under the Employment Equality Act 1998 concerning discriminatory harassment, victimisation and termination of employment against the firm.
Mr Gourley insisted that his termination from the firm after a six-month probationary period in August 2023 was related to his health conditions. He also stated that after lodging a complaint about disability discrimination, episodes of harassment or victimisation persisted until October of that year during the investigation.
On behalf of the employee, John Cleary from the trade union Siptu, presented that his client experienced extreme fatigue and difficulty retaining and absorbing information during his tenure with the company. This led him to constant anxiety about making errors and concerns about his performance, ultimately leaving him overwhelmed.
Rosemary Mallon BL, a barrister for the law firm, said that the client whom Mr Gourley had been hired to represent had expressed dissatisfaction about the management of its files in June, 2023. Despite this, the company refrained from issuing a formal warning under the service level agreement, considering it to be the first complaint in nine years, she added. But, according to Ms Mallon, Mr Gourley’s case became untenable, noticing his workload was half compared to his team members.
Catherine Allen, working as a partner and superior to Mr Gourley in a firm, informed him on the 9th of August that a representative from human resources would be present for their weekly scheduled meeting the subsequent day, according to claims made. When suspecting his impending dismissal, Mr Gourley wanted to involve his trade union, he then contacted Ms Allen, as presented by Mr Cleary.
On the evening of the same day, Ms Allen wrote an email to Mr Gourley acknowledging his revelation of suffering from Long Covid, however, she pointed out his failure to request suitable adjustments for his condition. She highlighted that this was the first instance of his admission of depression.
In his response email, Mr Gourley argued for more time for dealing with his depression and long Covid for performance improvement, also asking for some supporting technology. On the upcoming day, he got dismissed, as heard by the tribunal.
Mr Gourley insisted that he made Ms Allen aware of his depression and anxiety earlier that summer and indicated that the performance-related criticism was overstated and not the real cause for his dismissal.
Ms Allen countered by saying that after a client meeting on July 19, 2023, she chose not to prolong Mr Gourley’s probation period but didn’t inform him immediately given their respective upcoming annual leaves. Ms Allen further clarified that an extension of probation wasn’t possible as the client wasn’t willing to collaborate with Mr Gourley.
Adjudicator Marie Flynn noted in her conclusion that Mr Gourley’s disclosure of his disabilities and request for accommodation obligated the company to evaluate his suitability for the job adhering to equality laws. Dismissing Mr Gourley based on competence lacked proper assessment of his abilities and whether proper adjustments could be made to deal with his weaknesses, Flynn added.
Ms Flynn expressed the viewpoint that one part of Mr Gourley’s complaint had substance, implicating Mason Hayes and Curran to furnish him with €5,000 as a redress. Furthermore, she set a three-month timeline for the legal firm to overhaul their guidelines covering reasonable accommodation and ensuring capacity development for all employees functioning in a supervisory role.
On the contrary, she surmised that Mr Gourley had not experienced discriminatory discharge and dismissed subsequent accusations of torment and scapegoating, particularly relevant to a grievance procedure enforced post his termination.
Proceeding his submission to WRC, Mr Gourley had directly addressed the firm, alleging disability bias and a neglect for rendering fair accommodation. Nevertheless, a prearranged rendezvous in September was annulled, citing Mr Gourley’s tardiness as the reason, as informed to WRC. Even when the meeting was reassigned to the subsequent month, the attendance of the employee was missing, but he continued to engage through email exchanges, as per the tribunal’s disclosures.
On the intended day of the September conciliation, Mr Gourley, upon reaching the company’s premises, eavesdropped on a telephone exchange between a receptionist and the firm’s litigation head, whose identity was not unveiled in the decision published by the tribunal. As per his account, the litigation head was heard voicing his frustration about him on the phone and declining to meet him. Shortly thereafter, an HR employee notified him that the litigation head was inaccessible.
The litigation head didn’t manifest in the WRC during these proceedings, as noticed by the tribunal. The company rationalized that Mr Gourley was 36 minutes overdue for an hour-long interaction.
Citing an email written at a later stage, forming part of the company’s legal arguments, Mr Gourley stated that he felt mortified by Ms Allen during the August probationary session, alleging that she had deceived him into presuming that there would be a conversation about reasonable accommodation – an assertion that the firm contrarily negated in their response.
His subsequent email indicated an allegation of yet another instance of humiliation the following month, linked to his onsite visit for the October grievance session, and highlighted deceptive and conflicting rationales given for the failed meeting attempts.
In response, the corporation sent a letter denying that their litigation chief had expressed any anger towards Mr Gourley, and refuted claims of falsified reasons. Meanwhile, Ms Flynn decided that Mr Gourley was unable to provide persuasive evidence to show a direct correlation between the abandoned meeting and his accusations of discrimination.