Dublin Law Firm Fined €21,000 for Pregnancy Discrimination

Law Firm Ordered to Pay €21,000 for Unlawful Dismissal of Pregnant Secretary

A Dublin-based law firm has been directed by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) to pay €21,000 in compensation to a legal secretary who was dismissed just months into her pregnancy. The ruling found that Cyril & Co Solicitors, led by principal solicitor Ashimedua Okonkwo, failed to disprove a prima facie case of discriminatory dismissal on the grounds of gender.

The complainant, Michele Merrigan, initiated proceedings under the Employment Equality Act 1998 after her employment was terminated on 14 March 2024. Ms Merrigan had informed her employer of her pregnancy in January of the same year and had discussed her intentions to take statutory maternity leave. At the time of her dismissal, she was approximately two and a half months pregnant.

The law firm vehemently denied that the dismissal was connected to Ms Merrigan’s pregnancy. Instead, the respondent argued that the decision was based on gross misconduct stemming from serious errors in the complainant’s work. The central justification presented to the WRC involved an incident where a client was allegedly given an incorrect court date, causing them to miss their hearing and resulting in a bench warrant being issued for their arrest.

A Defence Under Scrutiny

During the WRC hearing, the respondent claimed that Ms Merrigan had shouted at the client involved in the court date mix-up, and that this behaviour was a key factor in the decision to terminate her employment. However, this account came under intense scrutiny from the adjudication officer, Patricia Owens, who ultimately found the solicitor’s explanation of events to be lacking in credibility.

In her published decision, Ms Owens highlighted critical inconsistencies between the reasons for dismissal presented at the hearing and the official termination letter provided to Ms Merrigan. The letter detailed alleged performance issues but conspicuously omitted any mention of “gross misconduct” or the purported altercation with the client.

The adjudication officer questioned why such a significant event, if it were the true reason for dismissal, would be left out of the formal documentation. “I cannot understand, if as the respondent alleged, the complainant’s behaviour was the central reason for the dismissal, why it was not included in the letter of dismissal,” Ms Owens stated in her findings. She noted the “disparity in the evidence” and remained “unclear as to the severity of that altercation.”

Credibility and Due Process Questioned

The respondent, Ms Okonkwo, attempted to explain the omission by stating she was “overwhelmed” on the day and “did not properly think” about including the correct reason, instead writing down issues as they came to mind. Ms Owens dismissed this explanation outright. “I do not accept that explanation,” she wrote. “The respondent is a qualified and experienced solicitor who would fully understand the importance of ‘getting it right’ when it came to the dismissal procedure and the detail contained in the letter of dismissal.”

The adjudicator’s assessment was damning, adding, “No competent solicitor would have made such basic mistakes.” This pointed critique underscored the WRC’s view that the solicitor’s professional background made the procedural failings even more serious and the justification less believable.

Ultimately, the complete absence of due process proved fatal to the law firm’s defence. Ms Owens concluded that the failure to follow any standard procedure and the inability to accurately record the supposed reasons for termination meant the employer could not rebut the inference of discrimination. “I find that the respondent has failed to rebut the prima facie case of discrimination,” she concluded, ruling in favour of Ms Merrigan.

As a result, Cyril & Co Solicitors was ordered to pay Ms Merrigan compensation amounting to €21,000 for the distress and effects of the discriminatory act. Ms Merrigan was represented in the case by Eoin Morris BL, instructed by Daniel Quinlan of Crushell & Co Solicitors, while the respondent was represented by Ellen Walsh BL.