Mitchell v Southern Health Board [2001] 12 E.L.R. 201

Mitchel is considered key precedent within cases establishing whether a prima facie case of discrimination exists and thus requires a shift in the burden of proof in line with the Racial Equality Directive 2000/43/EC. This dispute concerns a claim by Dr. Mitchell that the Southern Health Board discriminated against her on the grounds of her sex in terms of Section 2(a) of the Employment Equality Act, 1977 and in contravention of Section 3(1) and (3) of the Act in relation to access to the permanent post of Consultant Physician/Endocrinologist The Labour Court found that she had not proven on the balance of probabilities any of the assertions on which her complaint was based, so that there was no prima facie case of discrimination. 

Facts  

The claimant had been a locum physician for five years and applied for the post she occupied when it became full-time. She was unsuccessful and a male candidate was appointed. She brought a claim to the Equality Officer who found that the respondent did not discriminate against the appellant contrary to the provisions of the Employment Equality Act 1977. The appellant appealed that recommendation to the Labour Court.  

Issues 

Mitchell argued that the Southern Health Board discriminated against her on the grounds of her sex in terms of Section 2(a) of the Employment Equality Act, 1977 and in contravention of Section 3(1) and (3) of the Act in relation to access to the permanent post of Consultant Physician/Endocrinologist. She alleged that she was not successful in her application on the grounds of her gender. In particular, she noted that discriminatory remarks were made prior to the interview, that she was better qualified than the successful candidate, and that the interview was not fairly conducted.

Reasoning 

Onus of proof

Where it is established that a person suffered discrimination in the filling of a post, the onus shifts to the employer to establish that the discrimination did not arise from the gender of the unsuccessful candidate. The Labour Court establishing the current test for establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, this places the evidential burden on the complainant to establish the primary facts on which they rely and to satisfy the Court that those facts are of sufficient significance to raise an inference of discrimination. If those two limbs of the test are satisfied the onus shifts to the respondent to prove that the principle of equal treatment was not infringed. 

This means, however, that a claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, the primary facts on which they rely in seeking to raise a presumption of unlawful discrimination.  

Conclusion  

Finding

The applicant’s three substantive claims – the discriminatory remarks, her superiority as a candidate, and the discriminatory conduct of the interview - were not supported by the witnesses called. 

The Court concluded, with some hesitation, that the appellant had not proven on the balance of probabilities the facts she was relying on.