We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
MINISTER OF STATE John Halligan asked a high ranking civil servant if she was married or had children during a job interview, which resulted in a government department paying out over €7,500 in compensation.
The minister said:
As a true advocate for equality for all, I regret that this incident occurred. The reasons behind my actions that day was to try and be as accommodating as possible to people who have children.
He said this was the first time he had conducted an interview of this sort, and said he did not realise that it was unacceptable to ask such a question.
“But the question was coming from a good place. It was in no way meant to be discriminatory in any shape.“
The executive officer – employed by the Civil Service since 1993 – had applied for one of two posts of private secretary in May 2016 to two junior government ministers in the same government department.
No parties are named and at the interview, the junior minister said to her “I shouldn’t be asking you this, but…. Are you a married woman?’ Do you have children? How old are your children?”.
Taken off guard, the female official answered the questions – she confirmed that she was married and that she was the mother of two children and she indicated their ages.
In reply, the minister observed “you must be very busy”.
At a Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) hearing into the official’s claim of discrimination under the Employment Equality Acts, the junior minister’s words at the interview were neither challenged or denied.
Commenting further on the case, Halligan said:
Operating a family-friendly environment has always been a key ethos of mine as an employer. I allow all of my employees the flexibility of starting late to enable them to bring their children to school or carry out any non-work commitments they may have.
During the course of this interview for the role of Private Secretary – shortly after I became Minister of State – I asked the candidate if she had children and their ages.
“I did this as I wanted her to feel that I would be flexible in terms of any family business that she may have to attend to. Too many workplaces have less than family-friendly arrangements and I always ensure that my workplace is as family-friendly as possible.
“I was simply trying to put the interviewee at ease. I wanted to assure her that I am as flexible as possible with members of my team with any external or non-work commitments they may have.
Ruling
In her ruling which found that the woman was discriminated against, WRC Adjudication Officer, Penelope McGrath found the junior minister’s comments to be “so outmoded”.
She said: “It was ill-advised of the Minister of State to have so pointedly obtained information that had nothing to do with this candidate’s suitability for a position, and a position for which she had determined she was eligible to compete.”
McGrath found that the woman “was put in a difficult situation in a job interview by reason of probing questions which went to the heart of her married and family life which historically could not be considered gender neutral questions”.
McGrath said that the questions also “indirectly associated her with the task of primary homemaker and therefore not as available as other less encumbered candidates might be”.
McGrath also found that the interview process was “tainted” by the fact that these questions were raised and allowed to be raised.
She said: “The same or even similar questions were not asked of the other two candidates. I do not find that the complainant was not ultimately selected by reason of the questions asked and answered.”
McGrath said that the complainant was entitled to rely on a circular issued by the then assistant secretary “that all civil servants can be confident that their rights under the Employment Equality Acts are guaranteed and no one will receive less favourable treatment than someone else because of their gender or civil status or family status”.
After the minister asked the contentious questions and the job applicant replied, the interview moved on.
However, the complainant felt even before the interview was completed “that the questions had been inherently unfair and she felt exposed, having been persuaded to disclose the fact that she had children of relatively tender years”.
This, she indicated, could in turn give rise to assumptions concerning the inevitable demands of family life and parenting as against the contrasting image of a strong, willing and able candidate that the complainant sought to present for the job in question.
The woman described the minster of state’s questions “as being highly inappropriate and she believed that she had been put on the back foot, as it were, in being persuaded to disclose what might be perceived to be domestic claims on her attention which would negatively impact the attention she could give to the job she was at that time and in that place, competing for”.
The complainant noted that she felt at a disadvantage and was placed in a position of either having to defend the fact that she was married with children or belittle the fact that she was married with children.
In her letter to the HR manager penned some two days post interview, the female official indicated that it was unfair to be in the position of having to explain how her family circumstances would not affect her performance on the one hand, and on the other hand had to worry about the fact that the lack of explanation would have been interpreted negatively against her.
The complainant argued that it is singularly telling that she, as the candidate with the greatest family commitment, was the candidate of the three available who was not picked for this financially enhancing promotion.
In her letter to the HR manager, the woman asked: “Did I miss something in the office notice which said that women with children need not apply because that is the message which I received?”
The female official had previously served as private secretary to a secretary general of a government department.
The woman stated that she had reason to be worried about a stalled career that had heretofore been on a successful trajectory and she was now seen as the person in the workplace universally perceived – in her mind at least – to be overly sensitive to her family life.
In response, the government department stated that the minister of state was simply trying to put the complainant at her ease.
The questions asked were not intended to be intrusive and it was intended to be a “getting to know you” exercise and nothing in particular was meant by the line of questioning.
It was argued that the questions were asked in a particular context where the minister of state was anxious that any potential member of his team would be assured that he would be as flexible as he could be with them and in particular having regard to any external and or non-work commitments that they might have.
With reporting by Christina Finn
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Political Correctness meets compensation culture.
@andrew: Are men asked such questions ?
@marg fitzgerald: was once asked if married n kids yes
@marg fitzgerald: yes they are
FFS
@John C Thomas: I know
@John C Thomas: my thoughts exactly
@Barbara Edwards: Is there a secret code to which you are all referring – i’m feeling a little left out.
@ForKent: do you feel that way often
@Barbara Edwards: Ahh that ridiculous I have been asked that at interviews as well. Like what?!?
@turnitalloff: FFS – politicians unfamiliar with the laws they themselves pass.
@Derry Buckley: Oh Matron!
@John C Thomas: good job he didn’t ask about the weather outside….could have been 30K then!!!
So if the candidate was found not to have been discriminated against and there was no evidence of any ill intent, one wonders what the €7,500 of tax payers money was paid out for exactly. It’s very easy for third parties to adjudicate on how other people’s money is spent.
@Pat O Neill: “In her ruling which found that the woman was discriminated against”
@Pat O Neill:
€7,500. Or to put it another way, a few months expenses. He won’t be losing any sleep over it on the plane to Pyongyang.
@Pat O Neill: Hallin was responsible so he should pay
@Feach News: thinks he’s a bit of a shaker maker too with the ladies
Of course what the minister meant to say was “Excuse me for asking but will you be having babies anytime soon? Because if you are it will mean that you will not be with me long and then i’ll have to hire a replacement… if you’re already married – well will you be taking time off to care for your younger children – oh they’re older well that certainly seems better to me…”
@Fred Croydon: Exactly! and we can keep the women from our jobs – except of course for the younger ones who we can bed in – or the older motherly type ones who we can pay less due to their lack of experience because they were off dossing and having babies.
That’s what happens when a Gobsihte is put into a job that he is not fit for.
The guys can’t conduct a standard interview and some how he thinks he’s the man to go to North Korea and solve the world’s problems.
@Daithí Ó hAoláin: He’s good to go. He’s married, so he’s entitled to flexitime.
Well then why did you say “I know I shouldn’t be asking this, but….”
Holy Jayden! There’s only one solution. The lads will have to move to another planet.
Very Fragile woman
Ridiculous award
@Mr Grumble: It’s a breach of legislation – you know – the laws passed by TDs? Nothing to do with being fragile.
It’s amusing how quickly he’s forgiven by the usual commentators for the Left on this forum.
He was wrong, he was way out-of-line. He clearly had a bias that was sexist in nature.
I’ve no idea why he was on an interview board in the first instance, surely there should be a “Chinese wall” between the elected representatives and the administrative staff?
@Brian Lenehan:
Yes it was a sexist bias.
But it is based in truth.
I think we all know ‘mummy’ colleagues who don’t do their fair share of work compared to their childless colleagues.
It is discriminatory against childless people and must be stamped out in the workplace.
For example companies that provide unpaid ‘parental leave’ should be obliged by law to allow childless people have the same access to time off.
If this is refused then parents should not be allowed to access it either.
@Colin Morris: It all depends on what kind of society we aspire to. One that penalises people for pro-creating or not. What you are advocating is actually saying well because i can’t have babies i should be compensated. Would you suggest that we make the females have their offspring in the canteen? Because if it is then i’m right (well) behind you.
I for one think women have it too easy in today’s society.
We shall protest at your right to have babies. #solidaritybrother (or sister)
Halligan is a bit of an innocent gobshi#e not bloody malicious… from what I know about the man he’d probably go out of his way to accommodate a woman with kids….
“I shouldn’t be asking you this….” Then he says he didn’t know he shouldn’t. This is the man who wants to lead a mission to North Korea to ensure world peace..
What does being married have to do with having children? His question doesn’t match the reason provided.
No fan of this man, but I accept his explanation on face value…
@Michael Carty: “I shouldn’t be asking you this but….”
@ForKent: Im inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt that there was no malicious intent, but its just benefit of the doubt…..The question should not be asked….
There are questions you can’t ask in interviews and that is one of them. It’s not a casual chat by the tea station. I can understand why a woman would feel that this question put her at a disadvantage.
Very foolish questions.
You don’t ASK these questions. You figure it out silently based on years attending college and/or years in employment.
And then you use another excuse not to hire women between the ages of 32 and 42 as they will be on maternity leave, or won’t work overtime and expect their single, male, older colleagues to carry the slack for them, and then whine about discrimination in promotion.
In the private sector it is much easier – at least there it is made quite clear that you are a machine with no rights and must perform.
@Colin Morris: utter b0ll0x – the legislation applies just as much to the private sector. The WRC are just as effective there too.
I would usually be saying ffs but this woman had a case . He knew he couldn’t ask it and still did the money should come from his own pocket . Its fairly obvious they wanted someone who would dedicate their existence to the job so things like family or possible kids down the line would mean thy would not be able to be a 24/7 slave .
Hope he has better luck in north korea,we can see already he has great interview skills .
Stupid comments here, as usual. You can cry PC culture all you want but Halligan clearly buys into the old mantra that women are likely to drop work commitments to run around for the kids and even if that didn’t end up having an effect on the outcome of the interview it’s pretty easy to see how that could reasonably have thrown the candidate.
@Guy Incognito: Stupid comment is not being remotely aware of anti-discrimination legislation. He’s a member of the Oireachtas, you know, the guys who pass legislation? He breached on 2 counts – family status and gender.
So you’re a feminist now Ted
Halligan just wanted to know would this women be running off if a child got sick or had a problem in school ,or if she got pregnant she would be off for months .Halligan is a complete gobsh&te and is useless as a minister .
Did she get the job?
Idiot
have your say