Offaly pharmacy ordered to pay €50,000 compensation to pregnant pharmacist
Ruling in Tullamore case sees woman receive half annual salary after she was told she would be dismissed if she didn’t accept demotion
An Offaly pharmacy has been ordered to pay €50,000 in compensation to a pharmacist who was told to take a demotion or face dismissal within five weeks of disclosing her pregnancy.
The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) ruled that Rose Finlay Pharmacy on Main Street in Tullamore had breached the Employment Equality Act 1998 and the complainant, Dikeledi Nkele Mushapho had established that she was discriminatorily dismissed in circumstances where she was pregnant.
This decision meant that the pharmacy was ordered to pay Ms Mushapho €50,000 after she lost her €100,000-a-year job there as supervising pharmacist last year.
As part of evidence outlined to the WRC at a tribunal, the complainant, who commenced a role as a supervising pharmacist on November 12, 2024, said that she was managing her team successfully through the busy Christmas period and received a lot of positive feedback from the owner of the business.
However, she claimed that following the disclosure of her pregnancy on February 18, 2025, her treatment in the workplace changed markedly and within five weeks she experienced a sharp decline in how she was treated which ultimately culminated in her dismissal on March 28, 2025.
Speaking at the adjudication hearing on June 11, 2026, the complainant submitted that this sequence of events constituted discriminatory treatment on the grounds of pregnancy and potentially amounted to unfair dismissal under the relevant legislation.
Ms Mushapho said that she was subjected to increased micromanagement and scrutiny following her pregnancy disclosure.
She highlighted an incident where an external consultant, who first appeared on February 21, 2025 was brought in and she later learned that he had been instructed to assess her performance, rather than to support the team as she was initially told. However, the consultant disagreed with this assertion at the tribunal.
The complainant submitted that the consultant seemed to take an unusual position in that he used language such as “I am disappointed in you“, indicating a personal interest rather than a professional stance on matters.
A witness at the tribunal noted that on February 28, the complainant did not make it back to work at an early time following a prenatal appointment and her employer was not happy.
When she returned, she worked later into the evening in an attempt to mitigate the delay in returning but missed the cut-off point for ordering medication and that this was used against her as a point of incompetence.
Ms Mushapho said that a conversation between her and the owner on March 3 was quite belittling and intimidating when a number of supposed failings were put to her but that some of the blame was unwarranted such as the standard operating procedures
She claims that these needed to be updated by the owner but were not done and the complainant was then blamed when it was the owner’s responsibility.
The complainant stated that on March 7, the consultant returned and the respondent had pre-booked a locum pharmacist which demonstrated that she was aware of the nature of the meeting.
She stated that she arrived early for work but that the owner and the consultant were already there and that it was never explained to her what the consultant was doing there.
Ms Mushapho claimed that the meeting felt like an ambush, they put her chair at the back of the room and were sitting up front and the respondent listed out all the mistakes she made the night she stayed later.
The complainant also remarked that she was not told in advance that she had the right to be accompanied to the meeting nor what it was about.
She received an email the following day outlining all the tasks she was supposed to achieve but not giving her a timeframe for completion of the tasks.
The complainant referred to the Audit Report produced by the consultant, which was provided to the WRC, and noted that there were no specific improvements identified in the report and that these were being attributed to her lack of achievement.
In response, and out of frustration, the complainant respondent to the productivity consultant emphasising her competence and mentioning the mental health difficulties associated with the pressure on her during her pregnancy.
Ms Mushapho stated that it appeared that she was now being micromanaged in order to get her to leave. The tribunal heard that on March 21, she was called into a meeting with the owner when she was due to be on her statutory breaktime and the owner indicated to her that she was still not happy with her progress and that she should move to the support pharmacist role.
The WRC heard that the meeting was held in a public place, and the complainant felt she could not show emotion. She also explained that she had no forewarning regarding this meeting, she was told to meet her during lunchtime and was also told not to discuss the matter with any staff members.
She stated that she was not able to take the lunch break due to having had the meeting and was required to return to work when it was over.
Ms Mushapho noted that she sent an email afterwards seeking reasons and in response received an email indicating she would be dismissed if she didn't accept the demotion.
The complainant mentioned that she had been carrying on the role of multiple staff in the absence of the support pharmacist, who had resigned, and the floor manager, who was absent on maternity leave.
She then explained that the replacement locum pharmacist was on in situ for two days a week rather than the hours that were previously done by the support pharmacist.
Ms Mushapho said she was not given a fair opportunity to respond to alleged performance concerns or to demonstrate her capabilities.
She refused to accept that demotion and was summarily dismissed with only four weeks’ notice and no due process.
The complainant reiterated that prior to disclosing her pregnancy, no concerns were raised about her performance and her experience in the role had been entirely positive. She stated that she received no prior warnings either verbal, written or informal.
Ms Mushapho told the WRC that the speed and nature of her dismissal and the hostile environment created after her disclosure left her emotionally distressed and mentally exhausted having already been humiliated in public and at meetings including in the presence of a third-party consultant.
She also believed that she was treated less favourably because she was pregnant and that her dismissal was discriminatory, unfair and procedurally flawed.
The complainant said the termination of her employment arose five weeks after disclosing that she was pregnant and following a period where she was told that she was doing a good job and was in train for a pay rise.
She stated that the numbers for the business were good and were rising from the date of her appointment.
In closing, the complainant indicated that there was an immediate change after she disclosed her pregnancy, she was demoted, received a cut in salary, received a cut in hours, and that no process was followed.
Ms Mushapho’s solicitor, Conor McCrave of Setanta Solicitors submitted that her dismissal was “discriminatory, unfair and procedurally flawed.”
After hearing all the evidence through the tribunal, adjudication officer Conor Stokes said the complainant was a credible witness and no exceptional circumstances were provided unrelated to her pregnancy that could explain her dismissal.
With this in mind, Mr Stokes upheld the complaint and awarded the worker €50,000 in compensation which was half of her annual salary for the breach of the Employment Equality Act 1998.
The employer didn’t attend the hearing which meant that there was no opportunity for exceptional circumstances or evidence to be provided. The report from the adjudication officer said the respondent’s representative telephoned the WRC about 15 minutes before the start of the hearing to inform WRC staff that he would not be at the hearing as he had a family issue to attend to. He indicated that he would be seeking an adjournment.
In order to facilitate the attendance of the respondent or an alternative person from the firm, the start of the hearing was delayed for 15 minutes. No alternative staff member attended the hearing and it went ahead.
The report said the respondent’s representative came on record in May 2025 but neither the respondent nor their representative engaged with the adjudication procedure after coming on record. No response was received to either the complainant’s submissions or to the hearing notifications that were sent, the report added.