{"id":51302,"date":"2025-08-20T08:44:37","date_gmt":"2025-08-20T08:44:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/?post_type=legal_developments&p=51302"},"modified":"2025-08-20T08:45:43","modified_gmt":"2025-08-20T08:45:43","slug":"one-years-remuneration-awarded-to-marketing-manager-demoted-following-her-return-to-work-from-maternity-leave","status":"publish","type":"legal_developments","link":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/thought-leadership\/one-years-remuneration-awarded-to-marketing-manager-demoted-following-her-return-to-work-from-maternity-leave\/","title":{"rendered":"One Year\u2019s Remuneration Awarded to Marketing Manager Demoted Following her Return to Work from Maternity Leave"},"content":{"rendered":"

In A Marketing Manager v A Drinks Retail Company (ADJ-00051379)<\/em>, the Workplace Relations Commission (\u201cWRC\u201d) found that the Complainant was discriminated against by her employer on the grounds of gender by not being returned to her position following maternity leave, contrary to section 26 of the Maternity Protection Acts (the \u201cActs\u201d).<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Facts:<\/span><\/strong> The Complainant worked for the Respondent company from June 2018 and resigned on 15th<\/sup> March 2024. The Complainant was employed as a Premium Spirts Customer Marketing Manager, and her job title was subsequently changed to Premium Spirts Marketing Manager. The Complainant took a period of maternity leave. The Complainant claimed that upon her return to work after approximately one year and 21 days, she was demoted from her Manger role to a Portfolio Department Lead.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant told the WRC that on Friday, 19th<\/sup> January 2024, she was notified that when she returned to work on Monday, 22nd<\/sup> January, she would be moving to another role and that the employee who was hired to cover her while she was on maternity leave would be staying in the Premium Spirits Marketing Manager role. She was given an overview of the new role, and she informed the Respondent that it sounded like a demotion. The role was subsequently referred to as Portfolio Department Lead. The Complainant received a job description after close of business on 22nd<\/sup> January and it became even more apparent that the role was more junior. The Complainant described feeling \u201cside-balled\u201d, she had expected to come back to her own role. There was no consultation about the new role, no notice, and no justification provided for not returning her to the role she did before commencing maternity leave.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant stated that her reservations about the new role stemmed from the absence of \u201cManager\u201d from the job title and from the reporting structure and the fact that the role had no budget or people management elements and was a much more operational role. The Complainant expressed these concerns to her manager but was told that it was not a demotion. The Respondent announced to everyone on a Teams call that the Complainant would be starting in her new role, when the Complainant had never actually accepted the new role. This eventually led to the Complainant handing in her resignation.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant submitted that it was \u201cirrefutable\u201d that the Respondent\u2019s change in attitude and treatment of her arose directly as a consequence of her maternity leave.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent argued that the Premium Spirits Marketing Manager role had expanded and that there was a need for additional resources to support the coffee side of the business. It became clear that there was too heavy a workload for one person. The Respondent stated that a decision was made to \u201csplit\u201d the role. It was the Respondent\u2019s position that although the term \u201cManager\u201d was not included in the Portfolio Department Lead title, it would be regarded as a managerial post in the industry.<\/span><\/p>\n

Decision:<\/span><\/strong> The Adjudicator, Patricia Owens, decided that the Complainant had proven the primary facts on which she relied in alleging discrimination.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Adjudicator examined the claim in relation to the role change being a demotion and found that there was no real or equivalent budget assigned to the role. She clarified that if this was the only difference she would not necessarily regard it as a demotion, however when taken in combination with the other differences outlined by the Complainant, the Adjudicator was satisfied that the new post was at a lower level from the Complainant\u2019s previous role and that it constituted a demotion for the Complainant.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Adjudicator then considered the Complainant\u2019s position that the change was presented to her as a fait accompli \u2013 <\/em>that when it was first put to her, she believed it to be an open discussion, but that it soon became apparent that she was not being given an option. The Adjudicator concluded that on the balance of probabilities the Respondent had already decided that the Complainant would move on to the new role upon her return and there was no intention to provide her with options. She agreed that the new role was a fait accompli<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Adjudicator then considered the Respondent\u2019s position that changes were being implemented due to organisational change and were not personal to the Complainant. The Adjudicator accepted that there may have been a need for additional staff to support the Complainant\u2019s former role of Premium Spirits Marketing Manager. However, the Adjudicator found that it was the Respondent\u2019s responsibility to set out clearly any options that were available to the Complainants in relation to the job role and the Respondent did not do so, which led her to believe that there was only one option available to the Complainant. The Adjudicator also concluded that there was no immediate imperative to make any change to the Complainant\u2019s role upon her returning from maternity leave, as the workload issues giving rise to the change had existed for several years.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Adjudicator was satisfied that the Complainant had raised facts of sufficient significance to create a presumption of discrimination and established a prime facie<\/em> case to meet the requirements of section 85(A) of the Act. She found that the Respondent had not discharged its burden and concluded that the Complainant was discriminated against on the grounds of gender by not being returned to her position after maternity leave as required by section 26 of the Acts and by being demoted by the Respondent.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Adjudicator directed the Respondent to pay the amount of \u20ac68,000 to the Complainant as compensation for the discrimination.<\/span><\/p>\n

Takeaway for Employers:<\/span><\/strong> This decision reminds employers of the general entitlement of employees to return to the same role following a period of maternity leave. While the Acts make provision for circumstances in which it might not be \u201creasonably practicable\u201d <\/em>for an employer to permit an employee to return to the same role, in which case a suitable alternative role should be offered, this decision makes it clear that employers must exercise care in such circumstances and ensure effective communication with the retuning employee, and a fair and transparent process. It is also important to ensure that the alternative work is on terms that are not \u201cless favourable\u201d<\/em> than those enjoyed by the employee before commencement of maternity leave. Moreover, employers need to ensure that any changes are justifiable and do not amount to discrimination. Legal advice is recommended.<\/span><\/p>\n

Link:https:\/\/www.workplacerelations.ie\/en\/cases\/2025\/june\/adj-00051379.html<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Authors- Abigail Ansell, Jane Holian, Jenny Wakely<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

31st<\/sup> July 2025<\/span><\/p>\n

Anne O\u2019Connell Solicitors<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

19-22 Lower Baggot Street<\/span><\/p>\n

Dublin 2.<\/span><\/p>\n

www.aocsolicitors.ie<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","class_list":["post-51302","legal_developments","type-legal_developments","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/legal_developments\/51302","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/legal_developments"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/legal_developments"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/developments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=51302"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}