Michele Merrigan brought proceedings in the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) against her former employer, Ashimedua Okonkwo, the principal solicitor of Cyril & Co Solicitors.

She was terminated on 14 March 2024, having informed her employer of her pregnancy in January that year and discussed her intention to take maternity leave.

Ms Merrigan brought a claim under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 contending that she was dismissed on the grounds of gender.

The respondent denied that the dismissal was related to the pregnancy and said it was due to gross misconduct relating to errors in the complainant’s work, including an incident where a client was given an incorrect date for a court hearing which he subsequently missed, leading to the issuing of a bench warrant.

However, in a decision published yesterday, adjudication officer Patricia Owens said the respondent’s account of events was not credible.

The letter of termination given to the recipient outlined alleged performance issues but made no reference to “gross misconduct” nor to claims heard by the WRC that the complainant had shouted at the client who was given the wrong date.

“The respondent would have me accept that she was so overwhelmed by what happened on the day that she did not properly think about including the correct reason for the dismissal in the termination letter and that instead she included things as they came to mind,” the adjudication officer said.

“I do not accept that explanation. 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.”

“No competent solicitor would have made such basic mistakes,” she added.

The adjudication officer noted that there was a “disparity in the evidence” relating to the alleged altercation between the complainant and the client and she was “unclear as to the severity of that altercation”.

“However, 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,” she continued.

“She stated that she included things as they came to her mind, yet having just come from a situation where she alleged that the complainant was extremely abusive to a client, that behaviour did not come to her mind.

“I do not find the respondent account of her reasons for dismissing the complainant to be credible.”

She concluded: “In circumstances where the respondent, who is a qualified solicitor failed to follow any semblance of due process in relation to a dismissal and failed to accurately record the reasons for the dismissal in the letter of termination I find the absence of such process and the lack clarity for the reasons giving rise to the termination of employment to be fatal to the respondent’s defence of the inference of discrimination.

“Accordingly, I find that the respondent has failed to rebut the prima facie case of discrimination.”

The respondent was directed to pay €21,000 to the complainant as compensation for the discrimination.

Ms Merrigan was represented by Eoin Morris BL, instructed by Daniel Quinlan of Crushell & Co Solicitors. The respondent was represented by Ellen Walsh BL.