A former Air Corps pilot has taken a High Court action over alleged gender discrimination and victimisation.
Amelia McKeown, a qualified pilot and former officer of the Defence Forces, claimed that she was suspended after complaining that she was being treated less favourably than her male colleagues.
Judge Rory Mulcahy said she had been based at Casement Aerodrome in Dublin.
He said she had resigned from her position in June 2015 and that at the time of her resignation she had been suspended from flying duties.
Judge Mulcahy added: ‘The circumstances surrounding that suspension are at the heart of these proceedings.’
He continued: ‘In very brief terms, it appears that the plaintiff had raised an issue with her superior officer in respect of being treated less favourably than her male colleagues.
At that time, it seems, she was the only female Air Corps pilot. Her suspension followed shortly after she raised this issue, and the plaintiff claims that the suspension amounted to gender discrimination and victimisation.
Judge Mulcahy also said that Ms McKeown sought a declaration that the suspension was not valid and that the decision to suspend her from flying duties was arbitrary, beyond the defendants’ legal powers, void and of no effect.
She has claimed that the existence of the suspension on her record has continuing impacts on her ability to earn a living as a pilot.
Ms McKeown alleged that the decision to suspend her from flying duties amounted to victimisation contrary to section 74 of the Employment Equality Act.
She has claimed damages for breaches of her contractual right to equal treatment and for gender discrimination and/ or victimisation.
The judge said the defendants in the case – the Minister for Defence and the State – had denied all her claims.
They said her suspension, or ‘withdrawal’, from flying duties was not motivated by gender or in response to her previous complaint.
The case came before Judge Mulcahy for a pretrial issue to be resolved and no further background concerning Ms McKeown’s suspension was given in his ruling.
He said the defendants asserted the case should have been taken to the Workplace Relations Commission or the Circuit Court, rather than the High Court.
The defendants also sought a preliminary ruling concerning issues relating to her contract of employment and whether it included an implied right to gender equality, he said.
They questioned whether European law gave rise to an independent cause of action against them, for damages for breach of an alleged implied contractual right to gender equality.
They also queried whether her claim, which was initiated in July 2019, was statute barred for having been taken too late, according to the terms of the Employment Equality Act.
Ms McKeown alleged that the preliminary hearing was intended to delay the main proceedings, a claim that the defendants vehemently denied. She said she had consented in October 2024 to the preliminary hearing but only in an attempt to expedite the case.
Judge Mulcahy said it was understandable that Ms McKeown had done so in her anxiety to progress the case.
However, in this case, he said it was unfortunate, as had the preliminary hearing application been contested, it would have been refused by a court.
‘It has not, and never could have, resulted in a saving of time and costs. On the contrary, both have almost certainly been increased,’ he said. ‘The effect of this application has been to delay from coming to trial proceedings which relate to events which happened a decade and more ago’.
Read the full story by Helen Bruce on Extra.ie
https://extra.ie/2025/04/01/news/courts/air-corps-discrimination
*****