Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2008

EQUALITY OFFICER’S DECISIONS NO:  DEC-S2008-110

Adeduntan

V

Vodaphone Ireland

 File No. ES/2006/0049

 Date of Issue: 27 November 2008

Keywords

Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2004 - Discrimination, section 3(1) – Harassment, section 11(1) - The race ground, section 3(2)(h)  – Provision of goods and services, section 5(1) – Redress in respect of prohibited conduct, section 21(2)

1. Delegation

1.1. Mr. Richard Adeduntan referred a claim to the Director of the Equality Tribunal under the Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2004 on 3 May 2006. In accordance with her powers under section 75 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, the Director then delegated the case to me, Tara Coogan, 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 Acts. The investigation under section 25 of the Acts commenced on 21 July 2008. An oral hearing as part of the investigation was held on 29 October 2008.

2. Dispute

2.1. The dispute concerns a complaint by Mr. Adeduntan (“the complainant”), that he was discriminated against and harassed contrary to section 5(1) on the ground of race by Vodafone Ireland (“the respondent”) on 16 May 2005. The complainant maintains that the respondent treated him less favourably when it disconnected his mobile phone and charged the complainant a reconnection fee. The respondent was notified on 14 March 2006.

3. Preliminary issue

3.1. A person who claims that prohibited conduct has been directed against him or her shall, within 2 months of the alleged incident of prohibited conduct, notify the respondent in writing of the nature of the alleged incident. I note that the respondent was notified on 14 March 2006. This is almost ten months after the phone was disconnected for a period of time. The complainant maintains that the discrimination he alleges is on-going as the respondent has not returned the reconnection charge that he had to pay in order to get his account activated. I do not agree with the complainant’s assertion that by not returning the reconnection fee the respondent continued to engage in prohibited conduct. I find that the issue of the money is a consequence of the alleged prohibited conduct, not a further incident of discrimination. Therefore the complainant has failed to establish facts to support his argument of on-going discrimination.   

Decision

I find that the complainant has failed to notify the respondent within the required time limits set out in section 21(2) of Acts. Therefore, I have no jurisdiction to investigate the above complaint.

________________

Tara Coogan

Equality Officer

27 November 2008