DEC-S2008-042 - Full Case Report

Equal Status Act, 2000

Equality Officer Decision DEC-S2008-042

Mr. X

-v-

A Town Council

Keywords

Equal Status Act, 2000 - Section 2(1) - Direct discrimination, Section 3(1)(a) – Discrimination by Association, Section 3(1)(b) - Gender Ground, Section 3(2)(a) – Marital Status Ground, Section 3(2)(b) – Age Ground, Section 3(2)(f)  Disability  Ground, Section 3(2)(g) – Provision of accommodation, Section 6(1) – Reasonable Accommodation, Section 4(1)

Delegation under the Equal Status Act 2000-2004

This complaint was referred to the Director of Equality Investigations under the Equal Status 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 me, Enda Murphy, 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 Status Act 2000-2004.  The hearing of the case took place on 26^th February, 2008.  Further information was received from the parties and the final information was received on 4^th June, 2008.

1.            Dispute

1.1             This dispute concerns a complaint by Mr. X that he was discriminated against by a Town Council on the gender, marital status, age and disability grounds in terms of Sections 3(1)(a), 3(1)(b) and 3(2)(a), 3(2)(b), 3(2)(f) and 3(2)(g) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 in not being provided with a service which is generally available to the public contrary to Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Equal Status Act, 2000. 

2.            Summary of the Complainant’s Case

2.1             The complainant, Mr. X, initially made an application to the respondent for local authority housing on 1^st July, 1997 when he was aged 21 years.  Mr. X is single and suffers from severe depression and as a result is on permanent anti-depressant medication.  During the period since making this application for housing numerous representations have been made to the respondent, on behalf of the complainant, including by his General Practitioner, a Social Worker, and a Mental Health Association, regarding the severity of his illness and his urgent requirement for local authority housing.  The complainant claims that the respondent has not recognised that depression is a disability and he contends that it has failed to take his disability into consideration when assessing his application for housing, despite it being made aware of the nature and severity of his disability on numerous occasions since his initial application for housing was submitted.  The complainant has resided at his mother’s residence at different intervals and also in rented accommodation since making this application for housing to the respondent.  During this period the complainant has endured a somewhat fractious relationship with his mother and the rented accommodation that he has occupied has been of a very poor standard and he has also been subjected to harassment by his landlord, thereby increasing his requirement for local authority housing.  However, despite the aforementioned issues and his urgent need for housing, the complainant has never been offered any form of local authority housing by the respondent. The complainant claims that the discriminatory manner in which his housing application has been dealt with by the respondent, and in particular by the Town Clerk, Mr. Y, has contributed significantly towards the deterioration of his illness and has resulted in an urgent requirement that he be allocated local authority housing.  

2.2             The complainant further claims that he has been discriminated against by the respondent on the grounds of his age.  The complainant contends that the respondent has breached and set aside its own stated letting policy in relation to a number of housing units within its jurisdiction that are reserved for elderly persons.  The complainant claims that a number of housing units have been allocated to individuals under the age of sixty years who do not meet the relevant criteria and he claims that several tenants were granted tenancies of these houses which was clearly in contravention of the Council’s stated policy in relation to reserved letting on the grounds of age.  The complainant claims that he has requested and pleaded with the Town Clerk, Mr. Y, on numerous occasions to be allocated one of the four units in these estates that were continuously unoccupied, however, the respondent has failed to accede to his requests. 

2.3             The complainant claims that he has been discriminated against by the respondent on the grounds of his gender and marital status by virtue of a comment which was written on his original housing application form which states “Single male not recommended”.  The complainant has been unable to establish definitively the author of this comment or the date on which it was written.  However, it is his belief that this comment was written on 24^th May, 1999 as the handwriting clearly matches a similar comment that was written on his housing application to his local County Council on this date.  The complainant claims that this comment represents the conclusion of an assessment that was carried out by respondent’s Housing Officer in relation to his application at that particular juncture.  The complainant claims that the respondent has failed to justify or explain this “single male not recommended” comment to his satisfaction and he maintains that the decision by the respondent not to allocate him housing in the intervening period was influenced by this comment which he contends clearly demonstrates that he has been subjected to less favourable treatment by the respondent on the grounds of his gender and marital status.  

2.4             The complainant also claims that the respondent has discriminated against him by association on the grounds of representations that he has made on behalf of his mother, who suffers from a heart condition, regarding the respondent’s failure to carry out repairs to her council house.  The complainant claims that the refusal of the respondent to carry out these repairs and its treatment of his mother have resulted in him clashing with the Town Clerk, Mr. Y on a number of occasions regarding these matters.  As a result of these clashes, the complainant claims that Mr. Y has actively participated in discriminating against him in relation to the processing of his application for housing.  The complainant also stated that he was involved in a court case during the period 1998 to 2002, which was widely known about in the locality in which he resides.  He claims that this court case was openly discussed by members of the Town Council in direct relation to his housing application.  The complainant contends that he was subjected to hostility and discrimination by the respondent and its officials as a result of this court case which has had a direct impact on the manner in which his housing application has been processed.    

2.5             The complainant also claims that the respondent cancelled his original application for housing in September, 2001 after it had lost an assessment form that he returned to the respondent earlier that year.  He contends that the cancellation of his application only came to his attention in February, 2003 at which stage it was necessary to make a fresh application.  The respondent informed the complainant that this new application would be backdated to 1997 but it has subsequently failed to explain why the application was lost in the first place.  The complainant claims that he should have been contacted by the respondent to inform him that his application had been cancelled.               

3.            Summary of the Respondent’s Case

3.1             The respondent denies that it has discriminated against the complainant on any of the grounds as alleged.  The respondent is empowered to act in the capacity of a housing authority in accordance with the provisions of the Housing Acts, 1966 to 1998 and accordingly, it has the autonomy to allocate local authority housing within its jurisdiction.  Mr. Y, Town Clerk with the respondent, informed the Tribunal of the procedures operated by the respondent in relation to the assessment of housing applications and the subsequent procedure of how recommendations and offers of tenancy are made to applicants.  When the respondent has constructed or has acquired a scheme of houses it requests the Housing Officer, who is an official employed by the local County Council, to carry out an assessment of the housing applications within its jurisdiction.  The Housing Officer is obliged to have regard to the Scheme of Letting Priorities that has been adopted by the respondent when assessing applications for housing. Following this assessment, the Housing Officer, in consultation with the Chief Medical Officer, then makes recommendations, in order of priority, in relation to a number of applications which will be twice or somewhat more than twice the number of houses available. This facilitates offers of tenancy subsequently when casual vacancies arise or where single houses might be acquired by purchase.  Part of this process includes identifying different categories of applications and the types of houses available which will, in turn, determine the categories of applications from which recommendations are likely to be made.  When the list of recommendations is made by the Housing Officer and the Chief Medical Officer it is then sent to the respondent, having been approved by the Assistant County Manager, Divisional Manager or Director of Service who is at that time Manager of the town.  Offers of tenancy are then made to applicants on the basis of that list with the Manager authorising the issue of letters of offer on each occasion. 

3.2             Mr. Y, Town Clerk, stated that he did not have the authority to act in the capacity of a Housing Officer and therefore, he did not have any input into the assessment of the housing applications that are recommended for offers of tenancy.  However, Mr. Y stated that in his capacity as Town Clerk, he has on approx. three occasions since 1997, been directed by the Town Manager to carry out assessments of applications and to make recommendations.  The respondent has received approx. 946 applications for housing in the period 1997 to 2007 and during this period it has only been possible to allocate housing to 80 of these applicants.  The complainant made an application to the respondent for local authority housing in July, 1997, and it was accepted that he has not been offered accommodation in the intervening period purely on the basis that his need for housing has not been as urgent as those applicants who have been allocated housing.  The respondent accepts that the complainant was suffering from depression and contends that it did, in fact, recognise this condition as a disability.  The respondent claims that all details of the complainant’s disability were made known to the Housing Officer and it was confirmed that this disability was taken into consideration when his application was being assessed.  Mr. Y stated that the respondent has a number of housing units that are confined to persons with disabilities and some of these units have been adapted specifically for this purpose. These units are normally allocated to persons with disabilities following a process of consultation between the respondent and the Health Services Executive.      

3.3             Mr. Y claims that the respondent does not have any small units or flats/apartments within its housing stock which are reserved specifically for single applicants with the exception of three schemes that were constructed specifically as dwellings for elderly persons.  In an effort to meet the housing needs for single applicants, who are not elderly, the respondent has on a limited number of occasions let vacant houses in these schemes to younger single applicants.  It is considered that having a younger person resident in a scheme may contribute to the sense of security of older residents and it is also the case that a number of such lettings to younger applicants also addressed exceptional circumstances relating to the applicants.  Mr. Y denies the complainant’s contention that the respondent has set aside its own stated reserved letting policy in relation to houses that were reserved for this purpose in these estates and he rejects the complainant’s allegation that this constitutes further evidence of discrimination by the respondent against him.

3.4              The respondent also avails of the opportunity presented by Voluntary Housing Organisations to address the housing needs of applicants to the Council, including single applicants, and over the past number of years two such schemes of houses have been developed in the locality by the Cluid (formerly St. Pancras) Voluntary Housing Organisation.  A requirement of approved schemes by Voluntary Housing Organisations is that 75% of their tenants must be applicants to local authorities for housing.  The respondent claims that details of all of its housing applications, including the complainant’s application, were made available to Cluid as part of the allocation process in respect of these houses.  Mr. Y claims that the “Single male not recommended” comment which was written on the complainant’s original housing application form represents the conclusion of the Housing Officer having assessed his application at that particular time.  Mr. Y stated that this remark was as a note made by the Housing Officer summarising that the applicant was single and had no family.  He denied that this remark was discriminatory in the context of the complainant’s application for housing.   

3.5             Mr. Y admits that the complainant’s housing application was cancelled by the respondent in 2003, however he claims that the reason the application was cancelled was as a result of the complainant’s failure to reply to an assessment of housing needs that was been carried out by the respondent at that particular juncture.  When the complainant brought this matter to the respondent’s attention his application was immediately re-instated and backdated to the original application date in July, 1997.  Mr. Y emphatically denies that he had any personal grievance or difficulties with the complainant or other members of his family and he totally rejects the allegations made by the complainant that these perceived difficulties or the complainant’s involvement in a court case had any bearing, whatsoever, in relation to the manner in which his housing application was processed by the respondent.  Mr. Y claims that the complainant’s housing application was dealt with in a non-discriminatory and fair manner and he also contends that the complainant cannot accept that the reason he has not been allocated local authority housing by the respondent is because of the fact that his housing needs are not as urgent as those applicants who have been allocated housing.       

4.            Conclusions of the Equality Officer

4.1             Section 38A (1) of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2004 sets out the burden of proof which applies to claims of discrimination. It requires the complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts upon which he can rely in asserting that he suffered discriminatory treatment.  It is only where such a prima facie case has been established that the onus shifts to the respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination raised.

Section 6(6) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 and Scheme of Letting Priorities

4.2             In considering whether discrimination has occurred on any of the aforementioned grounds, I am obliged to have regard to the exemption that is provided for in Section 6(6) of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 which states that:

“Nothing in subsection (1) shall be construed as prohibiting -   

(a)  a housing authority, pursuant to its functions under the Housing Acts, 1966 to 1998, or 

(b)  a body approved under section 6 of the Housing Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1992,

 from providing in relation to housing accommodation, different treatment to persons based on family size, family status, marital status, disability, age or membership of the Traveller community.”  

In accordance with its obligations under the Housing Acts[1], a housing authority is required to make a scheme determining the order of priority to be accorded in the letting of dwellings, and in doing so, it may specify certain categories of persons to which priority is to be accorded, such as applicants living in dwellings deemed to be unfit or dangerous, applicants living in overcrowded conditions and applicants who lack suitable or adequate accommodation.  The respondent in the present case is empowered under the Housing Acts to act in the capacity of a housing authority and it has adopted a Scheme of Letting Priorities in accordance with its obligations under these Acts.  The respondent has argued that the provisions of Section 6(6) of the Equal Status Act allows a housing authority to have regard to the different circumstances of applicants when assessing their housing applications and that it facilitates the prioritisation of applications based on the individual circumstances of the applicant.  The respondent claims that it is obliged to have regard to its Scheme of Letting Priorities when assessing and making recommendations in relation to applications for housing and it contends that the complainant’s application for housing has been assessed in accordance with this scheme.  The issue regarding the scope and the manner in which the exemption provided for in Section 6(6) of the Equal Status Acts should be interpreted has been addressed in a number of previous decisions under this legislation, and in this regard, I have taken note of the decisions of the Equality Officers in Mr. Leo Jones –v- Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council, A Complainant –v- A Local Authority and Michael McCann –v- Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council[2].  I have also taken cognisance of the Circuit Court judgement delivered by Hunt J. in the case of Dublin City Council –v- Grace Deans[3] where it is stated that:

 “I cannot construe subsection 6 of that section as exempting a housing authority in its entirety from all application of the equality legislation. It appears to me simply to provide that a housing authority is entitled to base its priorities and its housing plan on different treatment to persons based on family size, family status and the other considerations set out in the subsection”.

Having considered this issue, I am of the view that the exemption provided for in Section 6(6) of the Equal Status Act does not allow a housing authority to discriminate against the category of persons outlined therein, but rather that it facilitates the housing authority to prioritise in favour of those categories of persons.  I will now proceed to examine the complaint on each of the grounds claimed having regard to the exemption that is provided for in Section 6(6) of the Act.

Gender and Marital Status Grounds

4.3             The complainant, who is single and unmarried, claims that the respondent has discriminated against him on the grounds of his gender and marital status by virtue of a comment written on the original application form that he submitted to the respondent in July, 1997 which states “Single male not recommended”.  The complainant contends that this comment was written on 24^th May, 1999 and that he was informed by the respondent in correspondence that it represents the conclusion of the Housing Officer having assessed his application.  The complainant claims that this comment and decision was reached in the absence of any formal investigation or visit by a Housing Officer and that it was used by the respondent as the basis for the rejection of his application for housing.  I am satisfied that this comment is sufficient to raise an inference of discrimination on the grounds of the complainant’s gender and marital status.  In such circumstances, the burden of proof shifts and the onus rests with the respondent to rebut the allegation of discrimination if its defence is to succeed.

Respondent’s Rebuttal   

4.4             The respondent accepts that this comment was written on the complainant’s original application form and claims that it represents the conclusions that were reached by the Housing Officer, who assessed the complainant’s application, summarising that the application related to a single applicant with no family.  The respondent denies that the comment is discriminatory in the context of the complainant’ application.  In considering this issue, I believe that it is necessary to examine the procedure that is adopted by the respondent in order to decide upon the applicants that are to be recommended for the allocation of housing.  The procedure requires the Housing Officer, in conjunction with the Chief Medical Officer, to carry out an assessment of all applications on hand and to make recommendations in order of priority as to which applicants should be allocated housing. This assessment requires applications to be considered in accordance with the Scheme of Letting Priorities as the basic policy document and the process involves the identification of different categories of applications and the type of houses available, which will determine the categories of applications from which recommendations are likely to be made. I note from the evidence adduced that the respondent has received 946 applications for housing during the period from 1997 to 2007 and that only 80 of these applicants have been allocated housing during this period.  I also note that, of the 80 applicants that have been allocated housing during this period, a total of 14 applicants were single at the time of allocation (and of the same marital status to the complainant) and a further breakdown of this figure reveals that 10 of the 14 were single males (and of the same gender as the complainant) and the remaining 4 were female applicants.  I am satisfied that these statistics demonstrate that the respondent does not operate a discriminatory policy against single male applicants. 

4.5             Having regard to the evidence adduced, I am satisfied that the housing requirements of all applicants were assessed in accordance with the criteria outlined in the respondent’s Scheme of Letting Priorities and accordingly, I find that the reason the applicants who were allocated housing in preference to the complainant was because their need for housing was considered to be more urgent than that of the complainant’s based on an objective assessment carried out in accordance with its Scheme of Letting Priorities. The complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that the housing needs of such persons were not more urgent than his, at the particular time, or any evidence from which I could conclude that this was the case.  As I have already stated, I am satisfied that the provisions of Section 6(6) of the Equal Status Act facilitates a housing authority to prioritise in favour of the categories of persons identified therein and that such prioritisation does not constitute discrimination.  In the present case, I am satisfied that the respondent was acting in accordance with the provisions of Section 6(6) of the Act, and I find, therefore, that it did not treat the complainant less favourably on the grounds of his gender or marital status.  Accordingly, I am satisfied that the respondent has successfully rebutted the inference of discrimination on both the gender and marital status grounds.

Age Ground

4.6             The complainant claims that the respondent has discriminated against him on the grounds of his age on the basis that it has breached and set aside its own stated letting policy in relation to a number of housing units within its jurisdiction that are reserved for elderly persons. The complainant claims that a number of these houses have been allocated to tenants who were under the age of 60 years when their tenancies commenced.  He also claims that a number of these houses that are supposedly reserved for the elderly have remained vacant for long periods of time and despite his repeated requests to be allocated one of these houses, the respondent has failed to comply with these requests.  The respondent states that it has a number of schemes within its housing stock that are reserved specifically as dwellings for elderly persons and it is the respondent’s policy to let such houses primarily to elderly persons.  The respondent claims that very occasionally some exceptions are made to this policy, for example, on the grounds of increasing the sense of security enjoyed by elderly residents where they may rely on a younger and more active person for assistance or where other exceptional circumstances warrant such exceptional letting. 

4.7             Having regard to the provisions of Section 6(6) of the Equal Status Acts, I am satisfied that the respondent is not prohibited from providing special housing facilities for the elderly and that such a policy does not constitute less favourable treatment on the grounds of age.  Based on the evidence presented, I am satisfied that the respondent has in fact made exceptions to its policy in this regard on a number of occasions and it is clear that a number of houses that are reserved for the elderly have been allocated to persons under the age of 60 years, for example, a number of the tenants who were allocated these houses have respective dates of birth in 1958, 1960 and 1963.  However, having regard to the evidence adduced, I find that these individuals were allocated accommodation in preference to the complainant for reasons other than age i.e. that their need for housing was considered to be more urgent than that of the complainant’s based on an objective assessment carried out in accordance with its Scheme of Letting Priorities.  I find therefore that the complainant was not treated less favourably on the grounds of his age as a result of the respondent’s failure to allocate him a house that it had reserved for the elderly. Accordingly, the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the age ground.

Disability Ground

4.8             The complainant has been diagnosed as suffering from severe depression and I am satisfied that this condition constitutes a disability within the meaning of the legislation, and that therefore, he is a person with a disability within the terms of the Equal Status Act, 2000.  The complainant claims that the respondent has not recognised that depression is a disability, and furthermore, that it has failed to take this disability into consideration when assessing his application for housing, despite it being made aware of the nature and severity of his disability on numerous occasions since his initial application for housing was submitted.  The respondent claims that it has, in fact, recognised the complainant’s disability, however, it denies that it has discriminated against the complainant on the grounds of his disability and it claims that his housing application has been assessed in accordance with the same objective criteria as all other applications.  It contends that the only reason the complainant has not been allocated local authority housing by the respondent is that his housing needs have not been as urgent as those applicants who have been offered and allocated housing.  

4.9             I note that the respondent, when carrying out an assessment of the housing needs of applicants, is obliged to consider each individual application in accordance with the list of priorities that are that are identified in its Scheme of Letting Priorities.  The Scheme that has been adopted by the respondent makes provision for the prioritisation of applications by persons who are in need of housing on medical grounds and applicants who are deemed to fit into this category are accorded fourth preference in the order of priority in accordance with this policy. I note that the actual assessment of the housing applications made to the respondent is carried out by the Housing Officer in conjunction with the Chief Medical Officer, and I am therefore satisfied that this procedure facilitates an objective assessment of applications based on the criteria identified in the Scheme of Letting Priorities which includes objective consideration on medical grounds. 

4.10         Having regard to the evidence presented, I am satisfied that the respondent was fully aware of the precise nature of the complainant’s disability, and furthermore, I am satisfied that this disability was taken into consideration as part of the overall assessment of his application for housing.  I am satisfied that the reason the complainant has not been allocated housing by the respondent is not in any way attributable to his disability but rather is as a result of the number of applicants for housing whose needs are objectively greater than his.  Accordingly, I find that the complainant has failed to establish that the treatment he was afforded was less favourable than the treatment that would be afforded to another person, in similar circumstances, who was not disabled nor had a different disability.    

Reasonable Accommodation

4.11         In the case of disability, in considering whether discrimination has occurred, further consideration must be made to the issue of the provision of reasonable accommodation to a disabled person.  Section 4 of the Equal Status Act states as follows:

“4.—(1) For the purposes of this Act discrimination includes a refusal or failure by the provider of a service to do all that is reasonable to accommodate the needs of a person with a disability by providing special treatment or facilities, if without such special treatment or facilities it would be impossible or unduly difficult for the person to avail himself or herself of the service.

(2) A refusal or failure to provide the special treatment or facilities to which subsection (1) refers shall not be deemed reasonable unless such provision would give rise to a cost, other than a nominal cost, to the provider of the service in question”.

I am now going to examine if the respondent did all that was reasonable to accommodate the needs of a person with a disability by providing special treatment or facilities.  In considering the obligations that are placed upon a housing authority to provide reasonable accommodation to a disabled person in terms of an application for housing, I have taken cognisance of the judgement of Hunt J. in the Deans[4] case where it is stated that:

“It seems to me that it is beyond argument in this case that Ms. Deans suffers from a considerable disability which requires reasonable accommodation within the context of Section 4.  As I have pointed out in the decision which I have earlier referred to, reasonableness must be judged according to the context of the individual case.  The City Council is entitled to bear in mind all of the extensive and considerable social, legal and policy considerations listed by Mr. Connolly as being applicable to the position of a housing authority in making allocations of accommodation, and they are indeed relevant to the decision as to what is reasonable in the particular case.

The housing authority is not obliged to submit to every wish expressed by a disabled person in the context of an application for facilities. It undoubtedly enjoys a substantial and generous measure of appreciation in dealing with individual applications for reasonable accommodation.  All that it is commanded to do by the equality legislation is to devise a “reasonable” solution to a problem, not to achieve perfection and not to give in to every demand that is made of it, which, of course, would be wrong, because its primary consideration is to the community as a whole and to the community of homeless persons or persons requiring accommodation. Consequently, in my opinion it cannot be forced to make more than a modest or nominal departure from its carefully constructed allocation scheme to meet the needs of any particular individual and its obligations to the disabled must be seen in that context, that they involve no more than a nominal cost and a reasonable approach to the solution of the problems posed by the needs of a disabled person”  

4.12         Having regard to the findings of Hunt J. in the foregoing case, I am satisfied that a housing authority is not exempted from the obligation to provide reasonable accommodation to a person with a disability, however, in doing so it must also have regard to the Scheme of Letting Priorities that has been adopted.  In the present case, I note that the complainant submitted medical evidence to the respondent from his General Practitioner outlining the nature of his disability and also that representations were made on his behalf by local representatives and a Mental Health Association.  I am of the view that the provision of special treatment or facilities in the context of Section 4 of the Act, in the present case, would have placed an obligation on the respondent to give due consideration to the complainant’s disability as part of the overall assessment that was carried out on his application for housing in accordance with the adopted Scheme of Letting Priorities.  Having regard to the evidence adduced, I am satisfied that all of the medical evidence regarding the complainant’s disability was made available to the respondent’s Housing Officer and Chief Medical Officer and that this information was, in fact, taken into consideration in the assessment of his application for housing.  In doing so, I am satisfied that the respondent has provided reasonable accommodation in its assessment and consideration of the complainant’s applications for housing.  In the circumstances, I find it is reasonable to conclude that the only reason the complainant has not been allocated housing by the respondent is as a consequence of the number of applicants for housing whose needs are objectively greater and not as a result of any failure on the respondent’s part to provide reasonable accommodation in terms of the assessment of his application.   

5.            Discrimination by Association

5.1             The complainant claims that the respondent has discriminated against him by association on the grounds of representations that he has made to it on behalf of his mother regarding its failure to carry out essential repairs to the house she rents from the respondent.  The complainant claims that the respondent, and in particular the Town Clerk, Mr. Y, have actively discriminated against him in relation to the manner in which his application for housing has been processed as a result of the representations that he has made on behalf of his mother. The respondent totally refutes this allegation and it denies that the representations that the complainant has made on behalf of his mother have had any influence whatsoever regarding the manner in which his housing application was dealt with.  Section 3(1)(b) of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2004 states that:

“(1) For the purposes of this Act, discrimination shall be taken to occur –

      (b) where a person who is associated with another person –

(i) is treated by virtue of that association, less favourably than a person who is not so                

associated is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, and

(ii) similar treatment of that other person on any of the discriminatory grounds would

by virtue of paragraph (a), constitute discrimination”  

5.2             In considering this issue, I note that it is not disputed between the parties that the complainant had made representations to the respondent on behalf of his mother regarding her tenancy. However, based on the evidence presented, I am satisfied that any interaction which occurred between the respective parties, and in particular between the complainant and the Town Clerk, Mr. Y in relation to this matter, did not have any bearing or impact on the manner in which the complainant’s application for housing was processed.  In the circumstances, I have found no evidence to substantiate the complainant’s claims that he has been discriminated by association within the meaning of the legislation on the basis that he has alleged. 

6.            Other Issues

6.1             The complainant claims that the respondent’s Town Clerk, Mr. Y has operated an orchestrated policy of discrimination against him in relation to his housing application and has treated him in a cruel and inhumane manner.  The complainant also claims that Mr. Y cancelled his original housing application and that this action constitutes further evidence of the orchestrated campaign of discrimination to which he has been subjected by Mr. Y and other officials that are employed by the respondent. The complainant further claims that he has been subjected to discrimination by the respondent on the basis of his involvement in a court case that took place in the locality within which he resides during the period from 1998 to 2002.  He claims that this court case was openly discussed by members of the Town Council and that it had a direct impact on his application for housing to the respondent.  Mr. Y totally denies that either he, or any other official employed by the respondent had any personal grievances against the complainant or that any perceived grievances, on the part of the complainant, had any bearing on the manner in which his housing application was dealt with.  Mr. Y claims that the complainant’s application for housing was not treated any differently or less favourably than that of any other application.  Mr Y also refutes the allegation that the complainant’s involvement in a court case had any bearing on the manner in which his housing application was processed by the respondent. 

6.2             Having regard to the evidence presented, I find that the complainant has failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate the claims that there has been an orchestrated campaign of discrimination directed against him by either Mr. Y or other officials that are employed by the respondent in terms of the manner in which his application for housing has been dealt with.  It should be noted that in order for a complainant to succeed in establishing a prima facie case of discrimination under the equality legislation it is necessary to demonstrate that that he or she has been treated less favourably than another person would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the discriminatory grounds.  In the circumstances, I find that the complainant has failed to demonstrate that the alleged treatment outlined in paragraph 6.1 above amounted to less favourable treatment on any of the nine discriminatory grounds that are provided for in the Equal Status Acts.    

7.            Decision

7.1             On the basis of the foregoing, I find that a prima facie case of discrimination has not been established by the complainant on the gender, marital status, age and disability grounds in terms of sections 3(1), 3(2)(a), 3(2)(b), 3(2)(f) and 3(2)(g) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 and, accordingly, I find in favour of the respondent in the matter.

Enda Murphy

Equality Officer

3^rd July, 2008