Mr Patrick Reen V City of Cork VEC (Represented by O’Flynn, Exhams and Partners, Solicitors)
Background
1.1 On 20th November 2003 the complainant Mr Patrick Reen forwarded an ODEI 5 to the respondent, City of Cork Vocational Education Committee notifying the respondent as required under the Equal Status Act 2000 that he considered that he suffered discrimination and victimisation on the age ground in respect of an application for participation on a Legal Studies programme in 2003. The notification was received by the VEC on 21 November 2003. The date of the alleged discrimination stated on the notification form was 23 September 2003.
1.2 On 9 January 2004 the Equality Tribunal received a formal complaint from Mr Reen on the age ground. In the complaint Mr Reen claimed that he’d been discriminated against and was victimised by the City of Cork VEC. The complainant identified the date of the discriminatory act as 23 September 2003.
1.3 In the submissions and oral presentations made to the Equality Tribunal, the following incidents have been identified by Mr Reen as constituting less favourable treatment on the age ground.
- The complainant was a mature applicant at the time was interviewed at the Cork College of Commerce for a place on a course entitled Diploma in Legal Studies. The duration of the course is two years. The interviews for participation on this course took place on 2nd September 2003.
- The complainant contends that a statement was made to the assembled interview candidates on the date in question by an Officer of the VEC to the effect that preference in selection for the course would be given to Leaving Certificate holders in the first instance. The complainant does not hold a Leaving Certificate.
- Following the interview, the complainant was informed in writing that he had failed to obtain a place on the course in question. He contends that the reason for the decision to exclude him was based on his age and a desire on the part of City Of Cork VEC to exclude mature students of his age.
- The complainant is of the view that under the terms of the Human Rights Act, 2003 every citizen is entitled to an education and that this entitlement has been infringed by the decision of the VEC not to offer him a place on the course.
1.4 The admissibility of the complaint was raised at a preliminary hearing of issue on 20, December, 2004. The complainant represented himself and the respondent was represented by Mr Sion Williams, of O’Flynn, Exhams and Partners, Solicitors. At the preliminary hearing the complainant presented his case and the respondent provided information as to the method of interview and selection of students for participation on the Legal Studies course. The VEC staff involved in conducting the interviews provided an explanation as to the questions asked and the criteria used for selection to the course. However, the main thrust of the respondent’s case at this preliminary stage was that the notification of the alleged discrimination was not made in compliance with the requirements of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2004.
It was agreed by all parties at the hearing that a preliminary Decision would issue in relation to the issue of the admissibility of the complaint.
2 Conclusions of the Equality Officer
2.1 Section 21 of the Equal Status Act, 2000-2004 reads as follows:
“ (1) A person who claims that prohibited conduct has been directed against him or her may, subject to this section, seek redress by referring the case to the Director.
(2) Before seeking redress under this section, the complainant –
(a) shall, within two months after the prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred, or, where more than one incident is said to have occurred, within two months of the last such occurrence, notify the respondent in writing of –
(i) the nature of the allegation,
(ii) the complainant’s intention if not satisfied with the respondent’s response to the allegation to seek redress by referring the case to the Director”
2.2 The notification of the alleged discrimination in this case was which was sent to City of Cork VEC by the complainant, on 20 November 2003 and received by that organisation on 21 November, 2003, stated that that the alleged act of discrimination took place on 23 September 2003, thereby complying with the statutory requirements for notification of cases of Discrimination under the Equal Status Acts 2000 – 2004. The notification and the subsequent complaint appeared to be in order and accepted by the Equality Tribunal as being so.
2.3 However, the respondents state that the result of the complainant’s application for participation on the Legal Studies course was conveyed to the complainant and to all other applicant’s for that particular course on 5 September 2003 that is three days after the interviews took place. It is contended that the notification which stated that the act of alleged discrimination occurred on 23 September was consequently invalid and the complaint was not admissible under the terms of the Equal Status Act. The respondents deny that any statement was made by an officer of the VEC in relation to a preference for having leaving Certificate Students on the course and that such a policy would defeat the purpose of having such a course open to mature students.
2.4 The complainant was not in a position at the preliminary hearing to furnish the letter which he had received stating that his application had been unsuccessful. The respondents for their part were not in a position to furnish a copy of the letter issued to the complainant personally. They did furnish to the Equality Officer and to the complainant a copy of the standard letter issued to all potential students in such cases. This letter is addressed “Dear Applicant” and the respondents stated that the reason for the impersonal nature of the responses to successful and unsuccessful applicants alike is that approximately 3,000 such letters would have been issued in that particular week. The complainant acknowledged that this was the form of letter which had been sent to him. The respondents presented evidence that all letters relating to the Legal Studies course were issued on 5 September, 2003 and stated that no letters were issued in relation to this particular course subsequent to that date. The complainant was not in a position at the preliminary hearing to indicate the specific date on which VEC had written to him in the matter and no evidence was presented that he was prevented from learning of his failure to gain a place on the course until 23 September 2003.
3 Decision
3.1 Arising from the issues which were considered in some detail at the preliminary hearing, I am satisfied that the replies to all of the applicants for participation on the Legal Studies course in question, were issued on 5 September 2003 and therefore that the date of alleged discrimination could not have been 23 September as stated on form ODEI 5, sent to the respondents and a copy furnished to the Equality Tribunal. I find therefore that the respondent was not notified of the alleged discrimination within period required under the terms of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 - 2004 and consequently the complaint is inadmissible.
______________________
Gerry Hickey
Equality Officer
6 April 2005