A salesman who submitted that it was “humiliating” to be paid less than a younger colleague after 22 years of “loyal and committed” service has won €106,000 in an equality ruling against a Co Donegal hair salon supplier.
In making the award, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) ruled that the company’s continuing failure to comply with an earlier order for unpaid wages due to the salesman was an act of discrimination.
The salesman, Damien O’Doherty, was awarded €53,000 for each of two separate breaches of the Employment Equality Act 1998 on the grounds of disability and age by his former employer, FM Salon Supplies Ltd, trading as Jules Hair and Beauty Supplies.
Siobhan McCormack of Citizens’ Information, appearing for O’Doherty, told the WRC that a pay dispute arose at the company in 2023, and both her client and a younger colleague, A, made “mirror” complaints to the WRC.
However, while the business made a deal with A leading to the withdrawal of his statutory complaint, no such arrangement was entered into with her client, Ms McCormack submitted.
O’Doherty’s case was that at various stages, he had been told by his boss he “should start taking things easy” and was asked whether he was “going to continue working” with reference to his age.
In August 2023, O’Doherty asked his employer whether he intended to resolve the claim, but was “met with hostility” and was “thereafter treated less favourably”, it was submitted.
His employer “yelled at him” and then proceeded to email him notice of suspension, the tribunal was told.
O’Doherty met his employer again later that month and challenged him on why he was not being offered the same commission package as A, the tribunal was told.
His employer said the younger man had better sales figures – to which O’Doherty replied that that A had been given a bigger sales territory, including some areas he once covered, the tribunal was told.
The employer then “categorically stated” O’Doherty “would not be offered the same deal”, it was submitted on the complainant’s behalf.
It was at that point O’Doherty told his employer for the first time he was suffering with his mental health, McCormack said.
On August 28th, there was another meeting – recorded “covertly” by the worker, the tribunal heard.
In his submissions, the complainant argued that he disclosed his long-standing mental health disability to his employer in the hope that he would no longer be subjected to such “humiliating and differential treatment” on the pay issue, only for this to be used against him a week later.
The complainant had 22 years “loyal and committed service” with the respondent company and had an exemplary work record,” it was submitted. On August 28th, there was another meeting – recorded “covertly” by the worker, the tribunal heard.
Adjudication officer Shay Henry admitted the tape as evidence and noted in his decision that the employer “swore at [O’Doherty], was abusive, and referred to his mental health disability in a derogatory manner”.
In the complainant’s submission, the employer was quoted calling O’Doherty a “prick” and a “tosspot” – and went on to tell the salesman: “You say you have a nervous problem; you have a mental problem,” the tribunal was told.
Medical evidence presented on O’Doherty’s behalf recorded a “significant deterioration in his mental health due to work-related stress”, in the wake of the incident, with his condition becoming acute after the incident on the 28th.
His pay claim was heard by the WRC on November 11th, 2025, by which time O’Doherty had been suspended from his employment.
No direct evidence was called by the respondent to rebut the discrimination complaints, adjudication officer Shay Henry noted in his decision.
Henry wrote that O’Doherty was “justified” in believing there was a different system of pay in place for his colleague. The respondent had also not testified to refute the comments on age put in evidence by the complainant, Henry added.
He concluded that age discrimination was at play and awarded 52 weeks’ pay.
Noting there was no evidence put forward to contradict O’Doherty’s account of remarks by his employer about his mental health, Henry also found the employer’s behaviour to be discriminatory.
“The decision of the respondent not to pay the award and to protract the issue could have a further detrimental effect on the complainant due to his disability and therefore I conclude that this was discriminatory,” Henry added.
He awarded O’Doherty a further €53,000, a year’s pay, for the disability discrimination – bringing the total sum awarded in the case to €106,000.