A pharmacist has failed in claims for disability discrimination and unfair dismissal taken against a company co-owned by former Fine Gael TD Kate O’Connell.
In a complaint under the Employment Equality Act heard at the Workplace Relations Commission, polio survivor Fadia Alshareefy alleged she was discriminated against due to her disability during her employment with Morgan O’Connell Pharmacy Ltd, trading as Blackglen Pharmacy.
Ms Alshareefy also alleged unfair dismissal from the company, which Ms O’Connell owns equally with her husband, Morgan O’Connell, in breach of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. However, she was statute-barred from pursuing that claim because she lost her job 2½ weeks before she was due to complete a year’s service.
Ms Alshareefy, who survived poliomyelitis as a child, walks with a limp and had some restricted mobility in her limbs but had completed further studies, achieved a masters in clinical pharmacy and made a career in the industry, the tribunal noted.
‘They beat me like they wanted me dead’: Hayes brothers to be sentenced for savage attack on former friend
Woman found dead in Gorey, Co Wexford is named locally
‘Christmas in Dublin remains something unmatched in my heart’: readers on what’s best about coming home for Christmas
André Rieu lobbied Ursula von der Leyen for €15m to stage world tour
James Doran BL, appearing instructed by solicitor Kevin Tunney for Ms Alshareefy, said his client originally took up the employment because it appeared to offer “more flexible” hours than her prior job in the pharmaceutical industry and she hoped this would facilitate her PhD research.
Ms Alshareefy’s case was that the employment relationship “cooled significantly” after gardaí called to the pharmacy on May 22nd, 2022 to query a prescription dispensed by Ms Alshareefy. They had concerns about “possible illegal multiple uses of the prescription”, the tribunal was told.
The complainant’s position was that the male director “became extremely annoyed and agitated” when Ms Alshareefy told him what happened. He was “shouting in a loud voice” about the interactions with gardaí, the tribunal noted.
After that, Ms Alshareefy said, she received “no guidance or professional support” and was “ignored”. She said the pharmacy technician got into the practice of bypassing her and referring issues to the senior pharmacist and the male director, who was referred to only as “Mr M O’C” in the published decision. The female director of the firm, who also gave evidence, was referred to as “Ms K O’C”.
Other issues raised by Ms Alshareefy included claims that the pharmacy’s CCTV system was being “abused” by the male director to “constantly monitor her” at work.
While all of her colleagues had received a Christmas gift that year, she was given none, she said. She added that requests she made for reasonable accommodation were “laughed at” by her employer – citing in particular a request for a suitable chair, which she said was never “satisfactorily resolved”.
The position of the company directors was that reasonable accommodation was given to Ms Alshareefy “as necessary”. Disability discrimination was denied, as were the allegations about CCTV monitoring and alleged “cool” professional relationships, the tribunal was told.
As “healthcare professionals” the directors accepted Ms Alshareefy’s circumstances and were “very committed” to assisting people with disabilities, the tribunal was told.
Ms Alshareefy said she was told at the end of her shift on April 8th, 2023 that the pharmacy was “losing a lot of money” and that she “had to be let go”.
Derek Dunne BL, for the respondent company, instructed by Kelly Hoban LLP, said the pharmacy was “losing substantial money” and that the company had “effectively made the complainant redundant”. The male director “repeatedly insisted” under cross-examination that the decision to dismiss was purely financial”, the tribunal noted.
In his decision, adjudicator Michael McEntee wrote that it appeared the garda matter was handled “somewhat abruptly and irately”. However, he said it would be a “big assumption” to link this to the worker’s disability.
He said there was a “significant difference in opinion” between the evidence presented by the parties. He said it was “hard to understand” the suggestion that the two directors “spent a lot of time watching the complainant” in an “overbearing” way. His assessment was that “all staff were subject to equal overview” and there was not a “sustainable case” of discrimination in that regard.
He rejected the equality claim, having already ruled the unfair dismissal complaint to be out of time. Further complaints by Ms Alshareefy under the Payment of Wages Act and the Terms of Employment (Information) Act were withdrawn.
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Join The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
- Listen to our Inside Politics podcast for the best political chat and analysis
