Man fails in claim CUMH discriminated against him over heel prick test for daughter

He believed he was being "purposefully assigned a lesser parenting role to his daughter than his partner" when he tried to get a heel-prick test for his infant

The man told the Workplace Relations Commission that Cork University Maternity Hospital staff had informed him that nobody could perform the test in circumstances where, in law, someone had not yet been made the legal guardian of the infant. Picture: Pexels

A man’s claim that Cork University Maternity Hospital discriminated against him because he was unmarried and a man has been rejected as “not well-founded”.

The Workplace Relations Commission made the ruling, despite having “sympathy” for the man who believed he was being "purposefully assigned a lesser parenting role to his daughter than his partner" when he tried to get a heel-prick test for his infant.

The man claimed he was subjected to “discriminatory treatment arising out of his gender, his civil status, and his marital status”.

The discrimination he believed he was subjected to, occurred on May 16, 2020.

Heel prick test

He had presented at the maternity hospital with his three-day-old daughter for a routine heel prick blood spot screening test, which is used to see if a newborn baby has any one of nine rare but serious health conditions.

Hospital staff informed him that nobody could perform the test in circumstances where, in law, someone had not yet been made the legal guardian of the infant.

The mother was not present at the time.

More than five months later, the man subsequently issued a workplace relations complaint,  on October 7, 2020.

The WRC adjudication officer Penelope McGrath pointed out that in accordance with Section 21 of the Equal Status Act 2000 (as amended) any individual may seek redress in respect of any prohibited conduct that has been directed against him or her by referring a case to the Workplace Relations Commission.

However, she also pointed out it is also a condition of any such move that the person seeking redress has to notify the organisation being complained about, in writing, the nature of their allegation against them and the fact they would seek redress through the WRC if they were not happy with how their allegation was dealt with.

That notice has to be brought within two months of the date that the conduct being complained about happened.

According to the WRC, CUMH said the claim against it was “out of time”, and in any event, the hospital said it was “constrained by law from performing any invasive (test) in the absence of consent from a legal guardian”.

Legal guardian

Ms McGrath said: “I accept as a matter of law that any person who is under the age of 16 can only have medical, surgical and/or dental treatment where the consent of the legal guardian has been obtained in advance.

“I also recognise that where the parents of children are not married, it is only the birth mother who is automatically assigned the status of legal guardian.”

She added: “There can be no doubt that the need to inform (CUMH) of an allegation of discrimination within a two-month period of the last act is mandatory. This did not happen in this instance.

“The complainant only advised (CUMH) nearly five months after the alleged incident. In those circumstances, the complaint is not well-founded.

“I have sympathy for the complainant who, in that instant, believed he was being purposefully assigned a lesser parenting role to his daughter than his partner had.

“I do, however, recognise the well-established law under which the hospital and its staff felt compelled to act.”