Misspelling of surname ‘not race discrimination’ – WRC

The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has dismissed a complaint of race, gender, and “intersectional” discrimination brought by a former customer service agent, Promise Obulor, against her former employer, the AA.

The WRC finding states that Obulor’s substantive claims were time-barred and that a post-employment misspelling of her name did not constitute unlawful discrimination.

In a decision issued by adjudication officer Breiffni O'Neill (5 August) the WRC ruled that the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination within the statutory time frame required under the Employment Equality Acts.

Background

The complainant, an African woman, was employed by the respondent company from 19 August, 2024 until her dismissal on 31 October, 2024.

The complainant was employed subject to a six-month probationary period.

As the sole woman in a training cohort of eight people, the complainant alleged she was subjected to heightened scrutiny, unfair performance standards, and harsher disciplinary measures than her male peers for minor issues such as lateness.

The complainant highlighted a remark by her supervisor stating she was "nowhere near where the boys are," arguing it demonstrated male employees were treated as the default performance benchmark.

She also claimed that following an abusive customer call, her attempts to defend herself were dismissed as "defensive”, a reaction she argued reflected harmful stereotypes surrounding African women.

Aggressive

She stated that this reflected an opinion that African women are “aggressive, confrontational or overly emotional”, and that her legitimate self-advocacy was reframed as problematic behaviour.

The complainant further stated that she observed differences in how disciplinary and attendance issues were addressed.

She alleged that when she was late due to transport issues she was formally criticised, whereas male colleagues who engaged in similar conduct were treated more informally.

Throughout her written submissions to the WRC, the complainant placed particular emphasis on the concept of “intersectionality”.

Conduct

She stated that repeated criticism of her performance and conduct, when contrasted with what she perceived to be more favourable treatment of male colleagues, gradually undermined her confidence and reinforced a feeling that she was viewed differently in the workplace.

In October 2024, following a violent street assault in Dublin, the complainant sustained physical injuries and had her phone stolen.

Despite notifying management, attending hospital, and providing medical certification, she reported receiving no welfare support or empathy.

She was dismissed shortly thereafter, a decision she challenged before the Labour Court.

Four warnings

During the hearing, the Labour Court heard that she had been issued with four warnings, for lateness, poor attitude on calls, and call manipulation.

In Recommendation LCR23193, the Labour Court found that the employer had not fully complied with code of practice on grievance and disciplinary procedures and ordered that the complainant be paid one month's salary in compensation.

Late filing of complaint

The complainant lodged her equality complaint with the WRC on 6 January 2026, 14 months later.

Under the Employment Equality Acts, claims must generally be lodged within six months.

To bridge this gap, the complainant argued that her claims formed part of a "continuing act" of discrimination that extended past her employment.

She pointed to several post-dismissal events, including:

• Misspelling of her surname (Promise Obular instead of Promise Obulor) in employer’s Labour Court submissions dated 22 October 2025,
• Employer describing her Labour Court compensation award of one month’s salary as a "goodwill gesture" in subsequent correspondence,
• Ongoing refusal by the firm to acknowledge the psychological harm caused.

The respondent denied all allegations of discrimination and maintained that the WRC lacked jurisdiction to hear the case due to the lapsed statutory time limits.

The employer argued that performance concerns and attendance issues led to the probationary termination, and that legal submissions or administrative ‘typos’ could not be leveraged to revive expired claims.

WRC Findings

Adjudication officer Breiffni O'Neill referenced established legal precedent (County Cork VEC v Hurley), in that a complainant seeking to establish a "continuing act" must first prove an initial act of discrimination occurred within the time window.

While acknowledging that the misspelled surname on 22 October 2025 fell within the time frame, O'Neill found it fell far short of establishing discrimination:

"An administrative or typographical error in the spelling of a surname, without more, is not capable on the facts of this case of supporting an inference of race discrimination," the decision noted.

No racial bias

He added that no evidence of derogatory remarks or racial bias was presented alongside the typo.

Regarding the employer’s framing of the compensation as a "goodwill gesture" and their refusal to admit fault, the adjudicator ruled that while such conduct may cause distress, maintaining a defensive posture in litigation does not in itself constitute less favourable treatment on race or gender grounds without supporting evidence.

Final decision

Because none of the post-employment events amounted to unlawful discrimination under the acts, the WRC held there was no recent act to anchor a "continuing continuum".

As a result, the serious substantive claims regarding her treatment during her 2024 employment fell outside the tribunal's jurisdiction and could not be legally investigated.

The WRC ruled that the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case, and that she was not discriminated against.

The complaint was formally dismissed.