I am Woman…….Hear Me Lie Through My Teeth.

 

While this is a sparse report – Dental nurse who claimed boss struck her loses appeal bid –Ray Managh– 19 December 2013, Irish Independent,  (I tried without success to find the original ET case) on what seems like a minor incident it serves as a useful example of several persistent and deeply embedded cultural and social norms that need to be as vigorously challenged as much as the broader issues of legal and political importance.

In a nutshell, Ann O’Reilly a 53 year old dental nurse worked for Dr. Tom Hughes in Malahide Co. Dublin for apparently 14 years without incident decided on a whim, or perhaps in a calculated attempt to extort money launched a case for “constructive dismissal” against Dr. Hughes.

Given the bare bones nature of this report it appears that Ms. O’Reilly saw an opportunity to get some free money and took it – in the expectation that her word, and her dramatic telling of how she was “assaulted” by Dr. Hughes would be immediately believed.

Alas, that is not what happened; Ms. O’Reilly’s case for constructive dismissal was, well – dismissed by the Equality Tribunal. This did not sit well with Ms. O’Reilly, so she appealed this decision to the circuit court, as is her right, and – her appeal was also dismissed.  Not a happy day at all for Ms. O’Reilly.

“A 58-year-old dental nurse, who alleged she had to quit her job because her employer struck her with his closed fist, has lost a court challenge to an Employment Appeals Tribunal decision to dismiss her claim.”

Ann O’Reilly was told in the Circuit Civil Court by Judge Matthew Deery that she had again failed to prove constructive dismissal against her former boss, Malahide dentist Dr Tom Hughes, or that there had been any element of assault by him.”

So, what DID happen?

According to O’Reilly her employer “struck her with a close fist” in effect assaulted her, ah but wait, is this one those “he said, she said” things that women are so fond of basing “frivolous and vexatious” claims on? I am being more kind than most of these women deserve – the words vindictive, malicious, perjured and spiteful are usually more approriate to describe the “claims” of most women.

Where were we?  Ah yes – “he said, she said” I think I would notice if someone struck another person with a closed fist, would you? Yep – thought so, and that is where it gets interesting, there was a witness to this alleged incident of violence, a patient sitting the dentist chair:

They had spoken to the patient who had been in the dental chair at the time of the incident and the patient had not noticed anything.”

You may be wondering who “they” are? Well “they would be the Gardai, because you see O’Reilly said:

She was very upset and shocked but finished her day’s work. She immediately contacted her solicitor and the gardai.”

Hmmm, so her claim is that her employer “assaulted” her in front of a witness, and not only could she mange to “finish her day’s work” but the witness “had not noticed anything”

Secondly, after working for 14 years for Dr. Hughes, without incident one has to presume, her first thought was – Gardai AND Solicitor!

In fact, this is what happened after this alleged assault:

The judge said that, following the incident on January 23 last year, she had not returned to work. Had she responded to approaches by fellow colleagues the matter could have been addressed to everyone’s satisfaction. However, she insisted on going down the legal road.”

He accepted that Dr Hughes had at all times wanted her to return to work and that Ms O’Reilly, who had worked at the surgery for 14 years, had insisted on him admitting what he had done and apologising to her.”

Fellow colleagues “approached” her, again one has to presume that these are also colleagues of Dr. Hughes, I hardly imagine that they would have tried if they believed for one minute that she had been “assaulted” in the manner she claimed she had been by Dr. Hughes?  Do you?

Nope – she “insisted on going down the legal road” a road that ultimately turned out to be paved with disappointment and disbelief of her dramatic little story. In fact, it is not unkind to say that she has been publically shown to be a liar, a greedy avaricious and conniving con artist who depended on a couple of myths.

The first that simply because she is female, and decides to get hysterical and make a mountain out of a molehill – she should be automatically believed.

The second, that because she has created out of whole cloth this hysterical and blatant pack of lies, which because she is female should and be automatically believed – she deserves compensation for her manufactured upset and shock.

So, what really happened?

Dr Hughes, of The Gallery Practice, Malahide, Co Dublin, told the court that, for safety reasons, he had moved Ms O’Reilly’s hand away from the operating button of a machine in the surgery while he was taking a patient’s dental impression.”

“He told the court that he had done so to avoid the possibility of injury to anyone in the surgery, including Ms O’Reilly.”

Let’s just go back a few steps, after finishing her day’s work in spite of allegedly being “assaulted” by Dr. Hughes, and in spite of being “very upset and shocked” and in spite of being employed by Dr. Hughes for 14 years. What does she do?

She sees an opportunity to make not just a quick buck, by manufacturing a pack of lies, and her first action is call the Gardai to make a false statement about being “assaulted” by Dr. Hughes – that must have been fun for Dr. Hughes and his family, but then immediately her solicitor.

Yes indeed, because we all know how MEN accused of assaulting WOMEN are treated?  Did this deter O’Reilly? Not at all, in fact it appears that in spite of attempts by colleagues to resolve this, she was hell bent on getting her pay-off and to hell with truth, to hell with the consequences for an innocent man.

Dr. Hughes is a lucky man, both the Equality Tribunal and the Circuit Court recognised a bare faced liar and con artist when they saw one – not all are so lucky.

Because O’Reilly is unfortunately NOT an exception, she is rather, a fairly typical example of the kinds of vicious, vindictive spiteful and lying venal creatures many many women are.

Advertisements

6 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Daniel
    Dec 19, 2013 @ 17:07:59

    I wish I could be shocked by this, but it such a regular story… some worse than others, it is in fact something insidious in our society.

    During my own ordeal I spoke to a woman in the mediation unit of Dolphin House family court and her saying it was embarrassing to her as a woman to see the appalling behaviour and abuse by “mothers”.

    Keep up the good work A. We will unlikely change the feminists, but the non bigots can still see injustice and will, with sites like yours, mine and others, these are not a few incidents and are a serious societal problem.

    They may even realize men aren’t killing themselves because they are “too proud” to show weakness. It always sickens me when I hear that by the very people who talk about someone saying “be careful meeting strangers from dating sites” as “victim blaming.

    You can imagine what they would say in a situation where the ratio of male to female suicides were reversed can’t you?

    Reply

  2. Daniel
    Dec 19, 2013 @ 17:10:26

    … the only odd things is that she didn’t get away with it. Genuine constructive dismissal is an appalling ordeal, man or woman, and she tries to use it as a meal ticket!

    Reply

  3. Anja Eriud
    Dec 19, 2013 @ 18:16:41

    During my unsuccessful search for the actual Equality Tribunal case transcript for Mizz O’Reilly’s cynical effort to extort money and display her inherent gynocentric “character” in all it’s glory I came across this:

    http://equalityforfathersinireland.webs.com/equalitytribunal.html

    Equality Tribunal cases of separated parents

    The Equality Tribunal is an excellent forum for addressing complaints of separated parents who feel they have been discriminated against due to their marital status, gender or family status. Examples of cases are listed below. It is important to note that although only two of these cases taken by fathers were successful, all of them could have been won had it not been for technical reasons such as the Notification being submitted outside the time limit of two months or all issues of discrimination not being included in the Notification.”

    I’m up to my eyes at the moment, so have only managed a quick scan of the cases listed, I will shortly be posting an article outlining how to first use this avenue of redress against discrimination against Fathers, but how to avoid the pitfalls that led to most of these cases being dismissed.

    As with all things legal, there is a right way and a “guaranteed to shoot yourself in the foot” way of doing something – if you note in the quoted passage above – but for technical reasons more than just two of these cases would have been successful, in fact ALL of them would have been won.

    Reply

  4. wtfwtf13
    Dec 19, 2013 @ 19:59:30

    It started with a roar,now it’s lying through the teeth,what next ?
    We need to resurrect the Bard of Avon to script this one !

    Reply

  5. John F Nolan
    Jan 10, 2015 @ 20:31:23

    There seems to be a one sided bias by a certain group who have no interest in the facts of the case .It is a case that came down to the merits of the evidence and nothing was proved comprehensively either way .The contributors here have taken their own prejudiced spin and for their own reasons come to a conclusion that suits their agenda.
    Nice one lads ……….

    Reply

    • anjaeriud
      Jan 10, 2015 @ 22:21:51

      I love cryptic comments – of the “I know things you don’t know” variety – like this one.

      From the top “a certain group” hmmmmm – what certain group would you be referring to? Because you see – that could be anybody – a travelling group of folk singers perhaps? Maybe a group of Buddhists? How about a group of mime artists?

      Saying things like “a certain group” with a nod nod wink wink, only sounds stupid – all mysterious and spooky.

      I was very interested in “the facts of the case” such as they were.

      ALL cases come down to – not the merits of the evidence per se – but the credibility and veracity of both the evidence and the complaining witness – ie – your mate, the nurse.

      I beg to differ re “nothing was proved comprehensively either way” – her case was first dismissed by the Equality Tribunal – to put it bluntly – they didn’t believe her.

      She then appealed that decision to the Circuit Court – and obviously presented the same evidence – and her appeal was dismissed – ergo – yet again – she (or her evidence) was not believed.

      In order for her to have won (be believed) she had to meet “the burden of proof” in other words – SHE had to convince yet another “adjudicator” that she was telling the truth.

      She didn’t. Twice.

      Finally – we are not in Scotland – there is no provision under Irish Law for a verdict of “not proven” you either win or lose, guilty or not guilty. Dismissal or Succeed – your lady friend’s case was dismissed – TWICE.

      As for this:

      “The contributors here have taken their own prejudiced spin and for their own reasons come to a conclusion that suits their agenda.”

      First – if by “contributors” you are referring to people who comment – they reached their conclusions based on the facts to hand – this woman had her sad tale rejected twice.

      As for “coming to a conclusion” that was unnecessary – both the Equality Tribunal and the Circuit Court had already “come to a conclusion” she was lying her arse off to put it bluntly.

      No-one who has commented has stepped outside the bounds of “fair comment” and believe me I know what those kinds of comments look like.

      I’m going to take a wild guess here and conclude that you have some personal connection to this woman and are now engaging in what in the wider MHRM (Men’s Human Rights Movement) is called White Knighting.

      You’re being all noble and chivalrous, defending the lady’s maligned honour – if that is the case – then you sir are a fool. In my opinion.

      Odd though how a year after this article was posted you pop up “defending the lady’s honour” out of the blue so to speak.

      I look forward to further comments from you and………….whoever ;)

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: