DEC-2004-002 Full Case Report

Joan Salmon(represented by the Equality Authority) V Para Equestrian Ireland(represented by KMB Solicitors)

1. Dispute
This dispute concerns a complaint by Joan Salmon that she was victimised on an ongoing basis since July 2001 by Para Equestrian Ireland (PEI) on foot of a complaint she made about her not being permitted to bring her guide dog to an international para-equestrian event in Scotland.The complainant maintains that she was discriminated against on the grounds of her disability in terms of sections 3(1) and 3(2)(g) of the Equal Status Act 2000 and subsequently victimised by the PEI when she complained about the treatment she had received.

2. Summary of the Complainant's Case
Ms Salmon states that she did not travel to an equestrian event in Scotland in July 2001 aPara Equestrian Ireland refused to allow her guide dog to accompany her. She considered that this action was discriminatory and raised the matter in the media. As aresult of taking this action, the complainant was refused entry to all future events comingunder the controlof PEI. Ms Salmon believes that the PEI's actions constituted victimisation under the Equal Status Act 2000.

3. Summary of Respondent's Case
The respondents totally reject that Ms Salmon suffered victimisation contrary to the provisions of the Equal Status Act 2000. They maintain that they had received advice thatMs Salmon's guide dog should not travel to Scotland because of Foot and Mouth restrictionsthat were in place at the time. When Ms Salmon was informed of this, she herself made the decision to withdraw from the event.The PEI state that Ms Salmon then bypassed standard complaint procedures within the organisation and immediately embarked on an aggressive media campaign which seriously damaged the reputation of the PEI in the public eye. As a result of Ms Salmon's actions,the respondents state that a decision was taken to preclude Ms Salmon from future events until an unreserved apology was received from her for the comments made in the media with regard to one of its members.

4 Delegation under the Equal Status Act, 2000
This complaint was referred to the Director of Equality Investigations under the EqualStatus Act 2000. In accordance with her powers under section 75 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 and under the Equal Status Act 2000, the Director has delegated the complaint to myself, Brian O'Byrne, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part III of the Equal StatusAct 2000.

5.1 Background Note
This complaint of victimisation was submitted to the ODEI - Equality Tribunal in September 2002, 14 months after the alleged act of discrimination in July 2001. No official complaint of discrimination was lodged with the ODEI in regard to the events of July 2001.

5.2 Principal Items of Evidence - Complainant

• The complainant is a visually impaired rider who went blind when she was in her mid-twenties
• At the Hearing on 11 September 2003, Doctor Ronan O'Guilenan gave an account of the serious medical problems that Ms Salmon has had to contend with over the years and he expressed the opinion that Ms Salmon's participation in equestrian events and her involvement with horses had contributed greatly to her regaining self-confidence in her ability to do things for herself.
• Doctor O'Guilenan said that Ms Salmon's outlook on life was a great inspiration to other patients who were attending him
• Evidence was also presented by Mr Simon Higgs from the Guide Dogs Association who outlined the difficulties encountered by guide dog users who are separated from their dogs for some time
• Mr Higgs described Ms Salmon as one of the "top achievers" among guide dog owners and a great example for new guide dog owners. She also had a great understandingand competence in handling her dog
• He stressed that when Joan is accompanied by her dog she needs "minimal attention"from other people
• Mr Des Kenny, CEO, NCBI supported the view that a person with their guide dog was much less a burden on other people than someone without a dog
• Ms Salmon has been participating in PEI international equestrian events for many years and is an Irish ParaOlympic medal winner
• Ms Salmon has, in the past, had to travel to many international events without her guide dog because of quarantine restrictions. On those occasions, she had never been comfortable without her guide dog, and had been particularly unhappy at the Sydney Olympics.
• Some months prior to July 2001, Ms Salmon attended an equestrian event in Germany with other members of the PEI team but without her guide dog
• In June 2001, Ms Salmon was invited to attend an equestrian event in Scotland by Ms Renee Stokes, then Honorary Secretary of the PEI. When she asked whether shecould bring her guide dog, she was told that this was not possible because of government restrictions due to the Foot and Mouth outbreak which was current at the time.
• When Ms Salmon enquired with the Irish and Scottish Departments of Agriculture, they both informed her that there would be no problem bringing her guide dog.
• When she brought this to Ms Stokes' attention, Ms Salmon says that Ms Stokes informed her that she could not bring the dog as it would create too much work for the person accompanying the team, which was Ms Stokes herself.
• Over the next few days, Ms Salmon made alternative arrangements for herself and her dog to travel to Scotland but when she told Ms Stokes, she was informed that herplace at the event had already been given to another rider, Mr John Bennett, the current Riders' Representative.
• Ms Salmon was aware of the PEI's "grievance procedures" whereby anyone who felt
  unhappy about a PEI decision could approach the Riders' Representative to havetheir grievance heard.
• Ms Salmon had previously held the position of the Riders' Representative herself buthad resigned the position as she was "unhappy with the committee".
• Ms Salmon made no approach to John Bennett, the current Riders' Representative,prior to the Scottish event when she learned that her guide dog was not permitted to accompany her.
• As she felt that she was unable to get any assistance or support from the PEI itself, she approached a friend, Ms Andrea Llewellyn, in the Royal National College for theBlind in England and outlined her case to her.
• In the days before the Scottish event, Ms Llewellyn, drafted a letter highlighting the situation that Ms Salmon found herself in and sent a copy, by email and fax, to avariety of media organisations complaining that Para Equaestrian Ireland had excluded ablind member from a training event in Scotland simply because she wished to be accompanied by her guide dog.
• In the days leading up to the Scottish event, several newspaper articles appeared, which were sympathetic to Ms Salmon's plight
• A photo of Ms Salmon and her guide dog appeared above one of the articles. Ms Salmon states that the photo was taken by the newspaper that week and also accepts thatshe may have spoken to the reporter who wrote the article, prior to its publication.
• At the Hearing on 11 September 2003, Ms Andrea Llewellyn confirmed that she had sent the letter but said that, despite it being written on Royal National College for the Blind headed paper, that it had been sent in a personal capacity and did not represent theviews of the College itself.
• She said that she had sent the letter because of the distressing effect the incident had had on Ms Salmon
• At the Hearing, Ms Llewellyn stated that, with the benefit of hindsight, she now accepts that her letter to the media "was not the most appropriate route to take" at the timeand she "regrets the effect that the letter has had".
• On foot of the newspaper articles, the PEI took a decision not to admit Ms Salmon to any future events coming under their control.
• Since then, Ms Salmon has been precluded from attending events or competitions under the control of the PEI
• At the PEI AGM in September 2001, Ms Salmon spoke to Mr Tommy Ryan, Chairman of PEI and asked him what she needed to do to be readmitted to PEI events. He told her that her position would only be considered after she had apologised unreservedly to Ms Renee Stokes for the comments attributed to Ms Salmon in the newspaper articles.
• Ms Salmon sent a letter of apology to Ms Stokes on 23 September 2001 but was informed by the PEI that it was not acceptable as it was not an "unreserved apology
• Some months after the newspaper articles, Mr Des Kenny of NCBI said that he spoke to Captain Ryan about Joan Salmon. They were both in agreement that the matter needed to be dealt with but the Captain was insistent that the question of an apology firstneeded to be addressed
• Despite approaches by other organisations on her behalf, including the National Council for the Blind in Ireland, Ms Salmon has not been readmitted to any Para Equestrian Ireland events since July 2001.
• The complainant argues that, in not allowing the guide dog to travel, the respondents
  failed to provide "reasonable accommodation" for the complainant contrary to the
  provisions of Section 4 of the Equal Status Act 2000
• The complainant also maintains that the refusal to allow her guide dog to travel
  constituted discrimination on the disability ground contrary to Section 3(2)(g) of the
  Equal Status Act 2000
• Ms Salmon complains that the subsequent treatment of her after July 2001 constitutes victimisation against her, contrary to Section 3(2)(j) of the Equal Status Act 2000. Principal Items of Evidence - Respondents
• Para Equestrian Ireland was established in 1997 as a voluntary organisation to promote and encourage people with disabilities to participate in equestrian events at national and international level.
• The organisation relies heavily on donations and subscriptions to fund its activities
• Ms Joan Salmon has taken part in many PEI associated events at national and
  international level on a regular basis since 1997
• On occasions when quarantine restrictions abroad applied to her guide dog, a member of the PEI always assisted Ms Salmon in a personal capacity
• In the past, Ms Adeline Brannigan accompanied Joan to Denmark and Sydney and Ms Renee Stokes accompanied her to Holland and Belgium and they provided personal assistance to her on these trips
• The Para Equestrian Team were scheduled to attend an event in Israel in July 2001 but this was canceled at short notice in May because of the political unrest in the region.Ms Salmon was scheduled to travel without her guide dog to that event
• Efforts were then made to find an alternative event, at which point the PEI received an invitation from Ms Kay Gebbe in Scotland to attend a training event in Gleneaglesfrom 22 July 2001
• Initially Ms Renee Stokes and another committee member were due to accompany the four team members on the trip but the second member had to withdraw at shortnotice leaving Ms Stokes to make all the travel arrangements herself. She was alsoresponsible for driving the team to Scotland.
• A few weeks prior to the trip, Joan Salmon rang her to ask whether she could bring her guide dog with her
• As Ireland and the UK were actively combating a serious Foot and Mouth outbreak at the time, Ms Stokes contacted Mrs Gebbe in Scotland to ask her to check whether therewere any restrictions in place at Gleneagles
• Ms Gebbe returned her call shortly afterwards saying that she had visited Gleneagles and seen a sign saying that dogs were not allowed on the premises. She also said that Gleneagles were taking the Foot and Mouth outbreak very seriously and had canceled all competitions and would not allow any movement of horses onto their land. Ms Stokes thanked her for the information and told Ms Gebbe that the PEI would respect Gleneagles position
• Ms Stokes admitted at the Hearing that she was relieved to hear this information as she felt that bringing the guide dog with the party would prove to be an additional burdenon herself as the only non-disabled member of the group
• Ms Stokes also said that she did not consider that this development would have a particularly adverse effect on Ms Salmon as she had travelled many times beforewithout her guide dog, most recently to Germany two months previously.
• Shortly after she informed her of the situation, Ms Salmon contacted her to say that she had checked with the Dept of Agriculture in England who had informed her that there were no restrictions on guide dogs and also that her friend Andrea Llewellyn hadchecked with Gleneagles and had been told that they had no problem with guide dogs.
• On hearing this, Mr Stokes conferred with Captain Tommy Ryan, Chairman of PEI, and they both agreed that, out of courtesy to Ms Gebbe, that it would not be appropriate to pursue the issue further with her in order to accommodate the guide-dog.
• As the Scottish trip was only a training event and not a competition, they decided that Ms Salmon should be told of their position and left to decide whether she wished toattend without her dog
• Ms Stokes told Ms Salmon what the position was, several weeks before the event, and asked her to make a decision as to whether she wished to attend without her guide dog.
• Ms Salmon did not give Ms Stokes her answer directly. Instead she was told by a third party in early July that Ms Salmon would not be travelling.
• Ms Stokes then phoned Joan who confirmed that she would not travel without herguide dog. At that point Ms Stokes informed the substitute rider that a vacancy had arisenand invited him to attend
• A week later, Ms Salmon phoned Ms Stokes to tell her that she had arrangedalternative transport with another driver. In reply, Ms Stokes informed her that it was too late as her place at the event had been filled
• Where competitors are unhappy with decisions of the PEI, a grievance procedure is in place whereby the individual can approach the Riders Representative to raise theissue.
• Ms Salmon knew about this procedure, having previously been the RidersRepresentative herselfNo formal complaint was made by Ms Salmon to any member of the PEI.
• On the Monday prior to the Scottish trip, Ms Stokes was contacted by RTE's Joe Duffy Show asking whether she would speak on the topic of Joan Salmon not beingallowed to travel to Scotland. She declined to do so as she did not know where the story had come from.
• The next day, a major article appeared in the Irish Independent on the subject. Ms Stokes was shocked by the article and was very hurt and upset over the comments made about herself personally.
• She was particularly taken aback by the comment attributed to Ms Salmon that Ms Stokes "should consider her position".
• The PEI itself regarded the article as a slanderous attack on their organisation and
  particularly on Ms Renee Stokes, their Honorary Secretary,
• Ms Stokes was deeply insulted by Ms Salmon's comments particularly on account of the help and assistance she had given to Ms Salmon personally over the previous 5years 10
• Ms Stokes immediately contacted Captain Tommy Ryan and other members of the PEI and there was agreement that a letter should issue to Ms Salmon expressing thePEI's displeasure over the article and demanding an unreserved apology from Ms Salmon.
• Such a letter was sent to Ms Salmon on 20 July 2001 stating that she had "made a
  personal attack on the character and ability of Ms Renee Stokes" which the PEI felt was totally unjustified and requesting that Ms Salmon immediately issue a written apology to Ms Stokes for the distress and embarrassment caused.
• In light of the situation, the PEI took a decision at that point that Ms Salmon should not be considered for further events until such time as a full apology was made
• Ms Salmon did not respond in the interim. However, she raised the matter with Captain Ryan at the AGM in September 2001 and he explained to her that her situation would not be reviewed until such time as an "unreserved apology" was made to Ms Stokes
• On 23 September 2001, Ms Stoke received a letter from Ms Salmon which in the opinion of the PEI and Ms Stokes "did not go far enough" as regards making an unreserved apology to Ms Stokes
• Ms Stokes subsequently resigned her position with PEI as a result of the fall-out over the newspaper articles
• Captain Tommy Ryan, Chairman of PEI, gave evidence that he considered the newspaper articles on Ms Salmon's case to be very damaging to the PEI and particularly to the character of Renee Stokes which had been "impugned".
• He said that the publicity generated by the articles resulted in the PEI losing potential
  sponsorship
• Captain Ryan said at the Hearing that it was his decision to give more weight to Ms Gebbe's assessment of the Foot and Mouth situation in Scotland than the Irish Department of Agriculture's assessment
• Out of courtesy to their host, Mrs Gebbe, he believed that the PEI should accept herword about dogs not being allowed in Gleneagles
• He did not consider that the situation would have greatly affected Ms Salmon who had been prepared to travel abroad previously on many occasions without her guide dog
• Captain Ryan believes that Ms Salmon was "badly advised" about going to the media
• Captain Ryan firmly believed that Ms Salmon's failure to withdraw her perceived grievance was unacceptable . While he personally wanted to see Ms Salmon back participating in events, he could not condone her actions. He considered that only a complete and unreserved apology to Ms Stokes with "no attachments" was required
• If the required apology was forthcoming, Captain Ryan said that he would be more than happy "to sit down with Joan" to discuss matters. He had also made it clear to the PEI Committee that, in the event of such an apology being made, he himself would have considered resigning his position if the apology had not been accepted.

6 Matters for Consideration

6.1 As stated earlier, no complaint of discrimination was lodged within the specified timelimits with regard to the events of July 2001 and the complaint of victimisation was only submitted in September 2002, 14 months after the alleged act of discrimination.Therefore, as the 6 month statutory time limit (12 months in exceptional cases) was not met, I have no jurisdiction to decide whether the decision not to allow Ms Salmon's guide dog to travel to Scotland constituted discrimination under the Equal Status Act 2000. I, therefore, must decide whether it is appropriate to consider the complaint of victimisationin a situation where no decision has been made as to whether the alleged incident of discrimination, from which the alleged victimisation arose, constituted an act of discrimination under the Equal Status Act 2000.

7 Conclusions of the Equality Officer

7.1 In this case, the complainant maintains that the treatment she received after 21 July2001 occurred as a result of her challenging the decision not to permit her to bring her guide dog to Scotland. She claims that the treatment she received constituted victimisation under the Act as she was penalised for having "opposed by lawful means an act which is unlawful under this Act" contrary to Section 3(2)(j)(iv) of the Act.

7.2 As stated earlier, I have no jurisdiction to decide whether discrimination occurred in this case and, therefore, I must decide whether it is appropriate to consider the complaintof victimisation in a situation where no decision has been made as to whether the alleged discriminatory incident, constituted an act of discrimination under the Equal Status Act 2000.

7.3 Having considered the evidence in the case before me, I have reached the conclusion that the complainant had a genuine perception that the treatment she received, leading up to the Scottish event, constituted discrimination under the Equal Status Act 2000 and that she genuinely believed that she was opposing " by lawful means an act which is unlawful under the Act" when she went to the media with her story.I am, therefore, prepared to accept that the complainant took the action she did, in goodfaith,believing that she had suffered discrimination and had not been afforded reasonable accommodation, contrary to the provisions of the Equal Status Act 2000. I am also prepared to accept that the complainant genuinely believed that she was being victimised, contrary to the provisions of the Equal Status Act 2000, when she found herself excluded from PEI events following the publication of the newspaper articles in July 2001. Accordingly, Iconsider that it is appropriate to hear the complaint of victimisation in this case despite the fact that the alleged act of discrimination has not been proven.

7.4 Prima facie case
Having decided that it is appropriate to hear the complaint of victimisation, I must first consider whether the existence of a prima facie case on the victimisation ground has been established by the complainant.Under Section 3(2)(j) the Equal Status Act 2000, a complaint of victimisation can be made if a person
(i) has in good faith applied for any determination or redress provided for under the Act
(ii) has attended as a witness before the Authority, the Director or a court in
connection with any enquiry or proceedings under the Act
(iii) has given evidence in any criminal proceedings under the Act
(iv) has opposed by lawful means an act which is unlawful under the Act, or
(v) has given notice of an intention to take any of the actions specified in (i) to (iv)
above, and the other has not.

7.5 I consider that there are three key elements which need to be established to show that
a prima facie case exists on the victimisation ground. These are:
A) that the complainant has in good faith taken any of the actions listed in Section 3(2)(j) (i) to (v)
B) that the respondent has treated the complainant in a particular way as a result of that
action
C) that the treatment is less favourable than the way the respondent treats or would treat a person who had not opposed the alleged discriminatory conduct in the manner the complainant did or the way the respondent would treat the complainant herself, had she not done so.If and when those elements are established, the burden of proof shifts, meaning that the difference in treatment is assumed to be discriminatory on the relevant ground. In such cases the claimant does not need to prove that there is a link between the difference and the membership of the ground, instead the respondent has to prove that there is not.

7.6 What constitutes "prima facie evidence' and how a "prima facie case" is established
has been documented and considered in previous cases such as Sweeney v Equinox
Nightclub DEC-S2002-031.

7.7 With regard to (a) above, there is no evidence before me to suggest that the complainant did not "in good faith" believe that she had been unlawfully treated in not being permitted to bring her dog to Scotland. The question, therefore, arises as to whether the complainant's approach to the media constituted opposition by lawful means of an act which is unlawful under the Equal Status Act 2000.As we are living in a democracy and people are entitled to freedom of expression, I can see no reason how the complainant's decision to approach the media could be deemed to be unlawful. I am, therefore, prepared to accept that Ms Salmon's decision to bring her case to the attention of the media, constitutes "opposition by lawful means" within the meaning of Section 3(2)(j)(iv) of the Equal Status Act 2000.With regard to (b) above, it is obvious that the complainant has received less favourable treatment, in being banned from any participation in activities in which she was previously very active.With regard to (c) it is also obvious that a person who had not gone to the media in the manner in which the complainant did, would not have been excluded from events under the control of the PEI.Therefore, in order to decide whether a prima facie case has been established, I must consider whether the treatment afforded the complainant was less favourable than the way the respondent would have treated a person who had not opposed the alleged discriminatory conduct in the manner the complainant did or the way the respondent would have treated the complainant herself, had she not done so.

7.8 On the basis of the evidence before me, it is clear that the treatment afforded the complainant since July 2001 stemmed directly from a decision taken by the PEI to exclude Ms Salmon from future events, on foot of newspaper articles which appeared immediately prior to the Scottish training event. It also appears clear that these articles and Ms Salmon's contribution to them, was the sole reason for the treatment she received and that she wouldnot have been barred from PEI events if those newspaper articles had not appeared.Therefore, in order to make a decision as to whether the less favourable treatment afforded the complainant was due solely to her bringing an alleged act of discrimination to theattention of the media, I believe that it is necessary to compare the complainant's situation to that of a person who had approached the media in the same manner as Ms Salmon did,but on a separate issue unrelated to an alleged breach of the Equal Status Act 2000.

7.9 In order to fully consider the above, I feel that it is necessary to examine the principal
pieces of evidence relating to the complainant's approach to the media, the newspaper
articles themselves and the respondents reaction to same. These are as follows:

• The PEI had a grievance procedure in place at the time and Ms Salmon was fully aware of it, although she may have had reservations about the effectiveness of the procedures.
• Ms Salmon did not avail of the recognised grievance procedures to challenge the decision that her guide dog should not travel to Scotland. It is appreciated, however, that Ms Salmon's decision not to pursue this line of action may have been influenced by the fact that the Rider's Representative, to whom the complaint should have been made,was the person who took her place at the Scottish event.
• There is no evidence to suggest that Ms Salmon approached any member of the PEIcommittee, apart from Ms Stokes, with a view to having the decision reversed.
• Ms Salmon did not initially tell Ms Stokes directly that she would not be travelling without her guide dog. Ms Stokes learned this through a third party and had to phone Ms Salmon herself to confirm the position a week before the event. While Ms Salmon may have expressed dissatisfaction with the decision to Ms Stokes, no formal request was made to the PEI Committee for the decision to be reviewed.
• Ms Salmon's decision to publicise the incident was taken in consultation with a friend in England and without the prior knowledge of anyone from within the PEI
• Ms Salmon did not avail of the provisions of the Equal Status Act 2000 at the time to
  notify the respondents that, in her opinion, they may have discriminated against her nor did she subsequently submit a formal complaint of discrimination to the Equality Tribunal alleging discrimination.
• There is no evidence before me to suggest that Ms Salmon utilised any other means,lawful or unlawful, to highlight the perceived discrimination against her
• The only avenue chosen by Ms Salmon to highlight the perceived discrimination was by way of a letter to the media.
• The principal newspaper article which dealt with Ms Salmon's situation was critical of
  the PEI and contained a quote attributed to Joan Salmon which said that "if Renee (Stokes) felt she was unable to meet the needs of a blind person to have her guidedog with her then she should consider her position"
• On seeing the newspaper articles, the PEI's immediate reaction was to write to Ms Salmon expressing their outrage over Ms Salmon's "personal attack on the character and ability of Renee Stokes". That letter, from Mr John Bennett, called for "a written apologyto Renee for the distress and embarrassment caused to her by the outrage ousarticle".
• The PEI have made it clear throughout this investigation that the only reason for Ms
  Salmon not being readmitted to events since the newspaper articles appeared was her refusal to provide an "unreserved apology" to Renee Stokes for the newspapercomments.
• The PEI maintain that the decision to exclude Ms Salmon from events was made solely because of "the attack on the character" of Ms Stokes and not for any other reason.

7.10 From the above, it is clear that a grievance procedure was in place within the PEI but
that Ms Salmon chose not to utilise it. Instead, Ms Salmon chose to highlight her grievanceby communicating her story directly to the media without any forewarning to the PEI. Having examined the newspaper articles in question, I have noted, in particular, the statement attributed to Ms Salmon that Ms Stokes "should consider her position".Regardless of how Ms Salmon has tried to reinterpret this phrase since then, I can fully understand the PEI's upset and annoyance on seeing this in print and I can appreciate how they came to interpret this comment as seriously impugning Ms Stokes on a personal level.Having considered the evidence before me at great length and having listened to accounts of the assistance and support which was given to Ms Salmon in the past by the PEI and its voluntary members, I find myself concurring with the PEI's view that Ms Stokes deserved an unreserved apology from Ms Salmon for the personal comments made about her in printand I consider that the PEI's decision at the time, not to involve Ms Salmon in future events until a full apology was made, was reasonable in the circumstances.

7.11 On the basis of the foregoing, I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the
PEI's reaction to the newspaper articles was guided by the personal comments made about Ms Stokes in the articles rather than the fact that the articles were highlighting Ms Salmon's perception that she had been discriminated against.I, therefore, consider that the treatment received by the complainant was not less favourable than the treatment someone else, who was not opposing a perceived act of discrimination,would have received from the PEI if they had been involved in the publication of similar-type newspaper articles which personally criticised an individual member of theorganisation.Accordingly, I find that, while the complainant may have been less favourably treated, that it was not because she contacted the media to oppose a perceived act of discrimination but because of the inappropriate manner in which she did so and I consider that the PEI would have afforded the same treatment to any person who had made similarly personalised comments to the media on a topic unrelated to an alleged breach of the Equal Status Act.

7.12 I, therefore, find that Ms Salmon has not established a prima facie case of
victimisation in this instance. Accordingly, I find that the decision of the PEI to suspend Ms
Salmon from future events, following publication of the newspaper articles in July 2001, did
not constitute victimisation under the provisions of the Equal Status Act 2000.

Decision

8.1 I find that a prima facie case on the victimisation ground has not been established by
the complainant in terms of sections 3(1) and 3(2)(j) of the Equal Status Act 2000.
Accordingly, I find in favour of the respondents in the matter.

8.2 I note that this case has caused much upset to many people over the past number of
years and that the situation between Ms Salmon and the PEI still remains unresolved.
Having listened to the views of all concerned, I believe that, with the benefit of hindsight, all
parties concerned would have preferred if this matter had been resolved quickly and amicably in 2001 and I believe that there is still a genuine desire on all sides to reach closure on this issue.I would, therefore, urge the parties concerned to get together as soon as possible in aneffort to resolve the issue once and for all.

Brian O'Byrne
Equality Officer
9 January 2004
16