Derry cross-border worker wins discrimination cases against Donegal employer

A Derry cross-border worker has been awarded €106,000 (£92,225) compensation by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) which ruled he had been the victim of age and disability discrimination by his employer.

The WRC adjudication was published on Thursday morning (April 16, 2026). It was handed down on January 13, 2026.

The case was taken by Damien O’Doherty, who was employed by FM Salon Supplies Ltd based in Forte Retail Park in Letterkenny, County Donegal.

Mr O’Doherty was represented by Siobhan McCormack from Connacht and Ulster Citizens Information Centre. FM Salon Supplies Ltd was represented by PA Dorrian and Company Solicitors.

The WRC is an independent Irish statutory body established in 2015 to oversee industrial relations and employment rights. It provides a single portal for resolving workplace disputes through adjudication, mediation, and conciliation, while inspecting workplaces for compliance with employment law.

Mr O’Doherty alleged FM Salon Supplies Ltd agreed to a different pay system with a younger worker (Mr A) and alleged discrimination on the grounds of age.

FM Salon Supplies Ltd had failed to pay a previous award made by the WRC on January 26, 2024 of €6,560.78 [ADJ-00045535] in respect to unpaid wages to Mr O’Doherty. Mr O’Doherty alleged this was further discrimination on the grounds of victimisation.

Because FM Salon Supplies Ltd failed to lodge an appeal, it was Mr O’Doherty’s contention the company’s failure to pay the award constituted an act of victimisation as he was penalised by FM Salon Supplies Ltd for issuing his claim under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 - 2015.

Derry’s Jordan Coyle leads Irish charge in Mexico City with podium finish

Coyle and King Kannan GP deliver a lightning-fast round to claim third place as the LGCT arrives at the iconic Campo Marte

IN PICTURES: 'Anatomy of A Cover Up' - Gary English and Jim Brown remembered in Derry

On Easter Sunday, 19th April 1981, Gary and Jim Brown were murdered by the British army on Creggan Road, Derry

FM Salon Supplies Ltd did not provide any alternative reasonable explanation in respect to what Mr O’Doherty described as a “flagrant breach” of a [WRC] Adjudication Officer’s Decision, which specifically required compensation to be paid to Mr O’Doherty.

The WRC Enforcement Section has confirmed the nonpayment of the unpaid wages has been referred to the court for enforcement proceedings.

In terms of Mr O’Doherty’s age and disability discrimination case, the comparator relied on to demonstrate less favourable treatment was Mr A, a younger salesman for FM Salon Supplies Ltd, who did not have a disability.

Medical evidence presented to the WRC showed Mr O’Doherty had a “significant deterioration in his mental health due to work-related stress”.

Mr O’Doherty disclosed his mental health disability to his employer for the first time at a meeting with him on August 21, 2023, when he questioned why Mr A had been granted “more favourable terms and conditions”. He did so “in the hope that the discriminatory treatment would end”.

According to Mr O’Doherty, the employer “attempted to rationalise the differential treatment on the basis that Mr A’s sales figures were higher”. When he pointed out this was because Mr A covered a much larger sales area, “including areas that were originally designated to him such as Derry and Donegal”, the employer “dismissed him and categorically stated that he would not be offered the same deal”.

At a further meeting with his employer on August 28, 2023, Mr O’Doherty claimed the employer called him a “big nose prick” and shouted “fuck off, you are really a tosspot aren’t you”. “You say you have a nervous problem, you have a mental problem”.

In his evidence to the WRC Mr O’Doherty said he had “22 years’ loyal and committed service” with FM Salon Supplies Ltd and “had an exemplary work record with no issue ever being raised by the latter about his work performance during the entire period of his employment”.

During the WRC hearing, Ms McCormack also contested Mr O’Doherty’s employer “never provided [him] with written terms and conditions of employment nor had any employment policies in place.

“It is contended that the Respondent [FM Salon Supplies Ltd] is therefore not in a position to now attempt to defend the Complainant’s [Mr O’Doherty’s] complaint of unfavourable treatment on the basis of his sales record, when he cannot produce any evidence in terms of documented minutes of any meetings that occurred with the latter to raise any issues concerning his sales’ records.

“It is submitted that this is a clear case of the Respondent trying to push the Complainant out, and replace him with a younger salesman, with no disability, to be the face of the company,” said Ms McCormack.

Upholding Mr O’Doherty’s claim he had been discriminated against on the grounds of age and disability, WRC Adjudication Officer, Shay Henry said: “It is clear that the decision of the Respondent not to pay the award [ADJ-00045535] and to protract the issue could have a further detrimental effect on the Complainant due to his disability and therefore I conclude that this was discriminatory.

“I am awarding 52 weeks pay as compensation for this discrimination.

“No evidence was given by the Respondent as to why he was insisting on a different payment system to the Complainant to that which he agreed with the younger co-worker Mr A. In light of the evidence given by the Complainant to various references made to him relating to his age, it is reasonable to infer that this may have been the reason, or part of the reason, for the difference in treatment and meets the threshold of prima facie evidence of discrimination.

“The burden of proof therefore switches to the Respondent. The respondent gave no evidence at the hearing to refute this allegation.

“I therefore conclude that the Complainant was discriminated against on the grounds of age.

“I am also awarding 52 week’s pay for this discrimination,” said Mr Henry. “The Complainant was discriminated against and I order the Respondent to pay him €106,000 in compensation.”