Scuola ordinata di pagare l’insegnante € 85.000 dopo un commento “a casa con il bambino” durante l’intervista di lavoro
https://jrnl.ie/6794700
di ClancyCandy
Scuola ordinata di pagare l’insegnante € 85.000 dopo un commento “a casa con il bambino” durante l’intervista di lavoro
https://jrnl.ie/6794700
di ClancyCandy
11 commenti
€85k for that is mental.
I’d have thought that seems like a nice thing to say? Am I mental?
I think the important thing the headline leaves out is they gave the position to someone with less experience than her and the panel couldn’t provide how they scored the two candidates to arrive at that decision. So it does seem like her family status was taken into account. That was the key thing. Seems like a high award but really discrimination cases should be to dissuade others from doing the same.
It’s a big award but it would want to be as I imagine she is unemployable in the locality now.
Just shows how careful you have to be with words.
In isolation it’s a comment that I’m sure meant well, and had no meaning behind and was exactly what it sounded like.
However, when you throw in the context that they subsequently couldn’t provide evidence of how the interviews were scored, she was able to argue the comment was in a discriminatory sense and that she wasn’t offered the job on the basis she was pregnant.
If they had graded the interview and though the other candidate was better, they would have been able to say we just went for the better candidate.
So let’s ignore the headline and look at the fact that she:
Had more experience then the other candidate
Worked already in the school for 2 years on a contractual basis
The panel had no way of showing how it was scored.
Regardless of the comments made by the principal, nearly anyone could have gottena away with a discrimination case in this. If the person was black, or wearing a burka they could have easily done the same. Its entirely the fault of the panel, while the principal may have being nice in what she was saying, the panels at fault here for not being able to produce or articulate why the scoring was done as it was.
I do panel interviews for my job, and were all told to literally document everything especially and negative points so that this doesn’t happen
I’m sure that €85k would have benefited the children more.
One thing I’ve never fully understood – is it actually illegal to discriminate when hiring based on someone *actively* being on maternity leave? The reality for the school (or a business) would surely be that the role is not filled until the maternity leave is over i.e. up to 42 weeks later?
This is going to have a big impact on teaching interviews. When I was teaching (few years ago now) the interviewers only have a bunch of headings, like ‘Subject Knowledge’, and they score the applicant a number out of the total for that topic. They do that because they know applicants have the right to request the interview notes.
This case was basically won because they had no evidence of how they arrived at their scores! No comments/notes.
Who has to pony up the 85k?
So many wrongs in this but first and foremost the headline is inaccurate – it’s not the school that pays out it’s the poor bloody taxpayer again paying out for the incompetence of the public sector and equally the disregard of the state apparatus like WRC has towards taxpayers money paying out such a huge amount for something like this! Of course neither will be held to account nor have to worry about a cent of this coming from their pocket because hey- the never ending slush fund that is the taxpayer is always available To tidy up public sector mistakes ! And this longevity nonsense only the public sector could get away it is incredible – so what if she had a few yrs more than the other teacher , she could easily be shite and not deserving. All the interview morons had to do was have a basic scoring system and score the other candidate higher! Imagine having a school principle who can’t even run a basic interview process ???