TULLAMORE – A ruling by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has ordered Rose Finlay Pharmacy (Tullamore) Ltd to pay €50,000 in compensation to a former supervising pharmacist following a finding of pregnancy-based discrimination.
The decision highlights the legal and financial liabilities facing healthcare retail operators when corporate governance fails to align with statutory protections for pregnant employees. In the Irish labor market, the Workplace Relations Commission serves as the primary mechanism for adjudicating breaches of employment law, with the ability to award significant damages for discriminatory dismissals and to set out detailed reasoning that can guide future employer conduct.
Dikeledi Nkele Mushapho held a supervising pharmacist position with an annual salary of €100,000, reflecting a senior clinical and managerial role within the business. The tribunal found that her employment was terminated shortly after she disclosed her pregnancy, in breach of the Employment Equality Act 1998, which expressly prohibits less favourable treatment of an employee on grounds of pregnancy.
The sequence of events leading to the dismissal is detailed below, forming the chronology on which the WRC based its assessment:
- February 18, 2025: Mushapho disclosed her pregnancy to her employer.
- February 21, 2025: A productivity consultant was introduced to the workplace for the first time.
- February 28, 2025: Employer expressed dissatisfaction regarding a delay in Mushapho returning from a prenatal appointment.
- March 21, 2025: Mushapho was told she should move to a support pharmacist role.
- March 28, 2025: Mushapho was dismissed after questioning the demotion in writing.
During the proceedings, Mushapho provided evidence that the business was performing well and that “the numbers for the business were good and were rising” since her appointment in November 2024. The WRC accepted that there was no underlying commercial crisis that might otherwise have justified restructuring or a change in her role.
The introduction of a productivity consultant three days after the pregnancy disclosure became a focal point of the case. While the consultant was initially presented as support for the team, the role quickly shifted to assessing Mushapho’s individual performance, a move the tribunal viewed in the context of the proximity between her disclosure and the subsequent criticism of her work.
Mushapho testified that she was managing the workloads of multiple staff members. These vacancies included a floor manager on maternity leave and a support pharmacist who had resigned, leaving a locum pharmacist to cover only two days per week. The WRC heard that this staffing pressure amplified her responsibilities at a time when she was also required to attend medical appointments linked to her pregnancy.
The employer’s attempt to justify the demotion centered on a missed deadline for ordering medication, which occurred after Mushapho stayed late to mitigate a delay caused by a prenatal appointment. This incident was characterized during the hearing as being “used against her as a point of incompetence,” despite the broader evidence of rising business performance and the acknowledged staffing gaps.
“Having considered all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this matter, my decision is that the complainant was discriminatorily dismissed on the grounds of her pregnancy,”
wrote adjudication officer Conor Stokes, adding weight to the established Irish position that pregnancy-related dismissals are treated as a particularly serious breach of equality law.
Under Irish employment law, once a complainant establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to demonstrate that the dismissal was based on non-discriminatory grounds or “exceptional circumstances.” That reversal is designed to prevent employers from disguising pregnancy-related decisions as performance management or restructuring.
Rose Finlay Pharmacy (Tullamore) Ltd did not attend the hearing. Consequently, no evidence was provided to rebut the complainant’s testimony or establish any exceptional circumstances that would justify the dismissal of a pregnant employee. The absence of the employer meant that the tribunal relied exclusively on the complainant’s uncontested evidence and the documentary record.
The WRC found Mushapho to be a “credible witness” and concluded that the move to suggest a demotion or face dismissal constituted a breach of the Employment Equality Act 1998. The tribunal held that the proposed downgrade, followed by termination when she challenged it, amounted to a continuum of adverse treatment linked to her pregnancy rather than a neutral reorganisation of roles.
The ruling mandates a €50,000 payment to Mushapho. Beyond the individual redress, the decision functions as a clear regulatory signal to pharmacies and other frontline healthcare employers that performance-management tools and external consultancy processes must be structured and documented in a way that demonstrably respects statutory protections for pregnant staff. The decision stands as a settled regulatory action under the Employment Equality Act 1998.