Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2008
EQUALITY OFFICER’S DECISIONS NO: DEC-S2008-111
A Complainant
V
Health Service Executive – North Eastern
(represented by Mr. Barry O’Donnell BL, instructed by Ms. Helen McGowern of McGowern Solicitors)
File No. ES/2006/0047
Date of Issue: 27 November 2008
Keywords
Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2004 - Discrimination, section 3(1) –The gender ground, section 3(2)(a) – The marital status ground, section 3(2)(b)– Provision of goods and services, section 5(1) – Redress in respect of prohibited conduct, section 21(2)
1. Delegation
1.1. A complainant 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 22 October 2008.
2. Dispute
2.1. The dispute concerns a complaint of less favourable treatment on the gender and marital status grounds contrary to section 5(1). The complainant maintains that the Health Service Executive – North Eastern (“the respondent”) failed to obtain his consent in relation to his daughter’s medical care in May 2003. The complainant maintains that he only became aware of this incident in June 2003. The respondent was notified on 11 February 2006.
4. 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 11 February 2006. The complainant maintains that the treatment he allegedly received is on-going. To support this argument, he referred to report that he had become aware of in December 2004. Having heard the complainant’s arguments in relation to why he considers that he has been discriminated against on by the respondent an on-going basis I am satisfied that the complainant’s dissatisfaction with subsequent events cannon be construed as prohibited conduct within the meaning of the Acts. 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