Dr. Suleiman Elhuweig vs University of Dublin Trinity College
File No: EE/2004/197
Date of Issue: 25th November, 2005
SUMMARY
Dr. S. Elhuweig (complainant) vs University of Dublin Trinity College (respondent):
Equality Officer Decision DEC-E2005-058 (Coyle G.) 25th November, 2005
Employment Equality Act, 1998 Sections 6, 8 and 74(2) - Access to Employment - Race - Victimisation - Racist Comment
Background:
The complainant applied for the Thomas Brown Lectureship in Russian in the respondent organisation. He alleges that he was treated in a hostile manner on account of his race by staff of the Recruitment Section of the respondent organisation when he handed in his application for this post and again subsequently when he handed in a letter of complaint. The complainant further alleges that he was discriminated against on the grounds of race when he was not successful in his application for the post. It is the complainant's contention that he was subjected to victimisation by the respondent organisation. The respondent has denied these allegations.
Conclusions and Decision:
The Equality Officer held that the complainant had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the grounds of race in relation to the alleged hostile manner in which he was allegedly treated, the alleged racist comment and in his failure to be successful in the competition for the Thomas Brown Lectureship in Russian at the respondent organisation. The Equality Officer found that the complainant had failed to make a case of victimisation within the meaning of Section 74(2) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998.
1. DISPUTE
1.1 The dispute concerns a claim by Dr. Elhuweig (a black Sudanese) against University of Dublin Trinity College that he has been subjected to discrimination on the grounds of race within the meaning of Sections 6(1) and 6(2)(h) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and in contravention of Section 8 of that Act. The complainant further alleges that he was subjected to victimisation within the meaning of Section 74(2) of the 1998 Act.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The complainant applied for the position of the Thomas Brown Lectureship in Russian in the respondent organisation. He alleges that when he handed in his application the staff in the Staff Recruitment Section were hostile towards him. The complainant was unsuccessful in his application and he alleges that he was discriminated against on the grounds of his race. He also alleges that he was subjected to victimisation by the respondent organisation. The respondent denies the allegations.
2.2 Consequently the complainant referred his complaint of discriminatory treatment and victimisation to the Director of Equality Investigations on 30th August, 2004 under the provisions of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. In accordance with her powers under Section 75 of that Act the Director then delegated the claim to Mary Rogerson, Equality Officer on 10th March, 2005 for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part VII of the Act. For operational reasons Ms. Rogerson asked that the claim be assigned to another Equality Officer for investigation and decision. The claim was then assigned to Gerardine Coyle, Equality Officer on 29th June, 2005. Submissions had been received by Ms. Rogerson and a joint hearing took place on 24th November, 2005.
3. SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINANT'S SUBMISSION
3.1 The complainant states that he handed in his application for the position of Thomas Brown Lectureship in Russian in the Recruitment Section of the respondent organisation on 24th March, 2004. According to the complainant this was in advance of the closing date for this competition. It is the complainant's contention that two of the staff present treated him in a very hostile manner alleging that the closing date for the competition had passed. It was only at the complainant's insistence that it had not that the staff agreed to accept the application. The complainant states that two days later on 26th March, 2004 he wrote a letter of complaint to the person in charge of the Staff Office expressing his concern over the treatment he had received. He then left the office and returned shortly thereafter requesting a stamped receipt of confirmation that he had handed in the complaint. It is the complainant's contention that one of the staff stated about him that he was a 'spear-chucking raghead' and this, the complainant alleges, was a racist comment. According to the complainant no effective action has been taken by the respondent to respond to his complaint and this, the complainant alleges, shows a 'tacit support' by the management of the Staff Recruitment Section to the abuse and discrimination to which he was subjected.
3.2 The complainant further alleges that the decision not to offer him the Lectureship position was unfair and discriminatory on the grounds of race. In his letter of rejection the complainant notes that the respondent has stated that it was 'fortunate in attracting a very high standard of candidates' and the complainant submits that this implies that his candidacy was of a very low standard. The complainant contends that his outstanding qualification and abundant experience was degraded to four lines and half a letter of race hate and rejection. It is the complainant's contention that his experience and qualifications surpass those of the successful candidate and the only reason he was disadvantaged for this job was because he was a non-white applicant.
4. SUMMARY OF THE RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSION
4.1 The respondent states that it advertised the position of Thomas Brown Lectureship in Russian (a 3 year benefaction) in the public press in early 2004. The closing date was originally 27th February, 2004 but in being advertised internationally the closing date was extended to 26th March, 2004. According to the respondent a total of 52 applications were received and a Nominating Committee was approved by the Academic Council to conduct the selection process. The respondent states that the applications were evaluated in line with the job and person specification. Based on the criteria the person appointed should have a primary degree in Russian or one including a substantial Russian component and ideally a postgraduate degree (preferably a PhD) in Russian or a related area, completed or close to completion. The successful candidate was to have recent experience of teaching Russian to non-Russian learners, preferably at third level, to have an excellent command of Russian and have the ability to deliver a variety of courses in both language and non-language areas. Five candidates were invited for interview and three additional candidates were placed on a Reserve List. On 28th April, 2004 candidates were invited for interview and on 29th April, 2004 all other candidates (including the complainant) were informed that they had been unsuccessful in their applications. Following presentations and interviews a suitable candidate was identified and offered the position.
4.2 The respondent notes that the complainant did not satisfy the first requirements for the post namely he did not possess a primary degree in Russian nor did he have a postgraduate degree in Russian or a related area. According to the respondent these criteria were strictly adhered to and as a result the complainant's application could not be given serious consideration for this post in circumstances where he is an agriculturalist holding an MA and PhD. The respondent notes that the same was true of a number of other applicants in what was a very large field. It is the respondent's submission that the complainant had no recent third level teaching experience.
4.3 The respondent states that the complainant handed in his application for the Thomas Brown Lectureship in Russian to the Public Recruitment Office on 24th March, 2004. At the time there were three members of staff working in the office. The office was dealing with a high volume of recruitment competitions at that time and as a result of the change to the original closing date there was some confusion about whether the deadline for receipt of applications had passed. Initially the staff thought that the closing date had passed but on the insistence of the complainant that it had not passed the staff checked it and realised that the closing date had not in fact passed. The respondent says that the staff member apologised to the complainant for the error and accepted his application. According to the respondent the complainant then left the office but returned soon thereafter demanding a receipt. The respondent says that its normal practice is to acknowledge receipt of applications in writing and the receipt requested was refused. When the complainant became adamant that he wanted a receipt the staff member decided to date and sign a piece of paper confirming that his application had been received by hand. The respondent states that it was considered by staff that the complainant's behaviour had become intimidating.
4.4 The respondent states that the following day the complainant returned to the Recruitment Office with a letter of complaint in which he expressed concerns and disappointment at the manner in which he had been treated. According to the respondent the Recruitment Manager dealt with the complaint by responding to the complainant's email address on his CV asking that he contact her so that she could discuss the issue with him. She also spoke with the two people who dealt with the complainant and they denied being rude to him. According to the respondent this was confirmed by a third member of staff who was present at the time. The respondent says that as the Recruitment Manager did not receive a response to her email she was unable to pursue the matter any further.
5. CONCLUSIONS OF THE EQUALITY OFFICER
5.1 The issue for decision in this claim is whether or not the complainant was discriminated against by the respondent on the grounds of race within the meaning of Sections 6(1) and 6(2)(h) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. I must also decide if the complainant was subjected to victimisation within the meaning of Section 74(2) of the 1998 Act. In making my decision in this claim I have taken into account all the submissions, both written and oral, from the parties.
5.2 The complainant alleges that he was discriminated against on the grounds of race when he was unsuccessful in his application for the Thomas Brown Lectureship in Russian in the respondent organisation. I have examined the criteria for this position and having regard to the complainant's Curriculum Vitae am satisfied that he failed to meet the criteria to warrant his consideration for this position. There is no evidence that the respondent's failure to call him for interview was in any way related to his race. On this basis I find that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie claim of discrimination on the grounds of race in relation to his failure to be successful in his application for the Thomas Brown Lectureship in Russian in the respondent organisation.
5.3 The complainant further alleges that he was discriminated against on the grounds of race in relation to the hostile manner in which he was treated by staff of the respondent's Recruitment Section when he handed in his application for the Thomas Brown Lectureship in Russian in the respondent organisation and subsequently when he handed in a letter of complaint about the confusion over the closing date and the reluctance to give him a receipt for his application. In relation to the handing in of his application for the Thomas Brown Lectureship in Russian I am satisfied that there was confusion on the part of the respondent as to the closing date for receipt of applications for this competition and that there was a reluctance to give him a receipt for his application. These were clearly the issues raised by the complainant in his letter of complaint. I am satisfied that these issues could have arisen with any potential applicant for this post irrespective of their race and there is no evidence that the complainant's race influenced what happened.
5.4 Two days later the complainant returned to the Recruitment Office to hand in his letter of complaint. He again sought a receipt by way of acknowledgement that his complaint had been received. According to the complainant he had to wait some fifteen minutes for the receipt and he alleges that, as he was leaving, the female who had been attending to him made a racist comment. The complainant says that he did not react to the comment but just left. At the hearing of this claim the complainant was unsure what the comment was and said that it sounded like 'spear-chucking rag head'. In a further written submission handed in at the hearing of this claim the complainant stated that he was "branded ;; spear chucking or may be F**** rag head". At the hearing of this claim the complainant also gave a description of the female who allegedly made the comment.
5.5 At the hearing of this claim the respondent stated that description of the female (who is alleged to have made a racist comment) does not match any of the staff who were assigned to the Recruitment Office at the time. In response the complainant stated that the incident had happened some two years previous implying that he may not be accurate about the description. The respondent also noted that staff in the Recruitment Office had indicated that they had never previously heard of the term 'spear-chucking rag head'.
5.6 In relation to the alleged racist comment I note that the complainant did not make a complaint to the respondent about this alleged comment. He said that he did not do so because he had applied for a position in the respondent organisation and he did not want to bring adverse attention to himself by making a further complaint. I note that he did not subsequently make a complaint about this alleged comment after he was informed that he had been unsuccessful in his application. The complainant stated that as he had not received a response to his first complaint he saw no point in making his second complaint. According to the respondent it did respond to the first complaint via email but the complainant did not reply to that email. The respondent was however unable to submit this email correspondence because of a computer malfunction at that time. I note that the complainant in the referral of his claim did not make any reference to an alleged racist comment and this was first alluded to in his submission received in this office on 7th April, 2005 and passed to the respondent on 11th April, 2005. Hence it was over a year after the alleged comment was made that the respondent became aware of it. Taking all these factors into account I find that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the grounds of race in relation to this alleged comment.
5.7 The complainant alleged that he had been subjected to victimisation by the respondent in terms of Section 74(2) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. I note that he did not provide any evidence to support this contention and I find that the complainant was not subjected to victimisation within the meaning of Section 74(2) of the 1998 Act by the respondent organisation.
6. DECISION
6.1 In view of the foregoing I find that the University of Dublin Trinity College did not discriminate against Dr. Suleiman Elhuweig on the grounds of race within the meaning of Sections 6(1) and 6(2)(h) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and contrary to the provisions of Section 8 of that Act in the manner in which he was treated when he hand delivered his application for the Thomas Brown Lectureship in Russian and his subsequent written complainant and also in his failure to be successful in that competition.
Gerardine Coyle
Equality Officer
25th November, 2005