A Fair Employment Tribunal has dismissed a religious discrimination claim brought by a former marketing and fundraising coordinator against the Order of Mary Servite Trust, finding that the charity did not treat Carmel O'Kane less favourably on the grounds of her religious belief or any manifestation of those beliefs during her employment.

O'Kane had alleged two acts of direct discrimination under the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998: first, that the respondent failed to continue her employment beyond a six-month probationary period; and second, that a discriminatory comment was made to her by the Chair of the Board, Professor Gerald McKenna, at a probationary review meeting on 17 September 2024. She argued both acts were connected to her conservative Catholic beliefs, specifically as expressed through her drafting of a Vision Statement for the organisation.

O'Kane commenced employment with the Order of Mary Servite Trust company on 18 March 2024 as marketing and fundraising coordinator at Benburb Priory in County Tyrone. Her contract included a six-month probationary period, during which her primary task was to produce a Vision Statement to support applications for external funding, including from the Heritage Lottery Fund. The respondent is a small organisation with a board of eight unpaid members and only two other paid staff at the time.

The central dispute over the Vision Statement concerned a section O'Kane included under the heading "Purpose, People and Culture", which contained what she described as four "ontological truths" reflecting what all parties acknowledged was a conservative view of Catholicism. Professor McKenna proposed editing "truths" to "beliefs" and removing certain references to Catholicism, expressing concern that the document's emphasis on a specific interpretation of Catholicism did not align with the Priory's stated identity as a broad church open to all and could harm funding applications. O'Kane resisted those edits.

The tribunal, constituted by Employment Judge Sheehan with members Mr A Barron and Mrs F Cummins, found Professor McKenna's evidence more credible than O'Kane's across several disputed matters. It rejected the allegation that he made a discriminatory remark at the close of the 17 September meeting, noting that O'Kane's account of the alleged comment changed between her appeal submission, her ET1 form, and her oral evidence at hearing. The tribunal found the documentary record of the meeting did not support the allegation.

On the dismissal itself, the tribunal concluded the genuine reasons for not extending O'Kane's employment were her failure to produce a Vision Statement suitable for external funding purposes and concerns about her working relationships with Board members, volunteers, and the independent business consultant retained by the respondent. The tribunal found these reasons were not connected to her religious beliefs or their manifestation. It added that even if it were wrong on that primary finding, any restriction on the manifestation of her beliefs in the document would have been a proportionate response, given the legitimate funding objectives of the organisation.

The tribunal acknowledged several procedural shortcomings by the respondent, including the absence of a written probationary review policy, no mentoring programme as referenced in the contract, no contemporaneous records of concerns raised about O'Kane, and a flawed appeal process. It concluded, however, that these deficiencies were attributable to the small size of the organisation and the absence of a human resources function, and that any employee in similar circumstances would have faced the same outcome. The claim was dismissed in its entirety.