A special needs assistant alleges she had to quit her job at a south Dublin school over “mistreatment” from parents who objected to her wearing a Palestinian keffiyeh scarf.Lawyers for the worker, Sarah O’Mahony, said their client was relying on the protected ground of “nationality and race” on the basis of her “association with people of Palestinian ethnicity” in an equality claim.O’Mahony has brought complaints under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 and the Employment Equality Act 1988 against Harcourt Terrace Educate Together National School in Dublin 2.Outlining his client’s case, barrister Michael Kinsley said “[Ms O’Mahony] wore certain items of clothing -a T-shirt and a keffiyeh we say are associated with the Palestinian nation, the Palestinian people – that caused objections from certain parents in the school”.“Management put pressure on her to no longer wear those items of clothing [and] failed to protect her from mistreatment by those parents who objected,” he said. Kinsley said these events led his client to take a leave of absence and ultimately to resign. Counsel said one of his intended witnesses, a teacher at the school, would say he had “the same difficulty with his wearing of a keffiyeh” and “the response from parents to that and the response of the principal to that”. He said that in October 2025 his client proceeded to file a complaint alleging constructive dismissal under the unfair dismissals legislation, along with a complaint alleging discriminatory dismissal under the workplace equality law and another of discriminatory treatment. O’Mahony, counsel said, was relying on the protected ground of “nationality and race” on the basis of her “association with people of Palestinian ethnicity” in the equality claims. The school is contesting the case, which did not proceed to a full hearing on Thursday. Kinsley said WRC administrators had written to his client’s solicitor to say O’Mahony was not entitled to pursue a claim in relation to her alleged dismissal under both the Unfair Dismissals Act and the Employment Equality Act and was required to pick one or the other. Kinsley said his client’s solicitor first wrote to say they wanted both complaints to remain live, but later confirmed the unfair dismissals case was to be withdrawn. The WRC administrators had, however, “elected to extinguish” the equality claim, Kinsley said. Counsel argued that both complaints remained live as the WRC had not “properly invoked” the legislation providing for an extinguishment of the claim. Out of “an abundance of caution”, Kinsley said, his client’s solicitor had filed a new equality complaint. Kevin Roche, appearing for the respondent, said the claimant’s request that both cases proceed “cannot be done” under the terms of the Employment Equality Act. Adjudication officer Máire Mulcahy said she would require submissions in writing on the dispute before proceeding. She gave the parties four weeks for an exchange of legal submissions on the matter and adjourned. Kinsley is instructed by Karl Gill of Ferrys Solicitors in the case; Roche by Catherine Kelly of Mason Hayes and Curran LLP.