Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2008
EQUALITY OFFICER’S DECISIONS NO: DEC-S2008-081
Dalton
V
Glynn
(Represented by Mr. Buttenshaw BL instructed by Mr. Woods, Orpen Franks Solicitors)
File No. ES/2004/0129
Date of Issue: 31 October 2008
Keywords
Equal Status Act 2000–Gender ground, section 3(2)(a) – Disability ground, section 3(2)(g) – Victimisation, section 3(2)(j)
1. Delegation under the Equal Status Act 2000
1.1. Ms. Mary M. Dalton referred a claim on 20 May 2004 to the Director of the Equality Tribunal under the Equal Status Act 2000. 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 Act The investigation under section 25 into this matter began on 13 March 2008. A hearing, as part of the investigation, was held 23 July 2008. Final materials were submitted by the respondent on 31 July 2008.
2. Dispute
2.1. Ms. Mary M. Dalton (“the complainant”) claims that her then landlord Mr. Glynn (“the respondent”) treated her less favourably her on the grounds of gender and disability contrary to section 6 of the Equal Status Act when she was presented with a notice to quit on 29 December 2003. The complainant maintains that this is tantamount to victimisation in accordance with section 3(2)(a) because she had an other complaint with this Tribunal lodged against him.
3. Case for the Complainant
3.1. The complainant maintains that on 29 December 2003 a strange woman, dressed as a flower delivery person, rang her door bell. The complainant opened the door to the woman and stated that she received an unpleasant surprise when, instead of presenting her with the decoy flowers, the woman thrust a ‘grubby’ envelope in the complainant’s hand and told her with a smirk: “you have been served”
3.2. The complainant stated in direct evidence that she was so shocked by this callous behaviour – given the time of year – that she collapsed in her bed.
3.3. The complainant maintains that the respondent is doing this to further damage her health. She stated that the complainant had, for the last year, colluded with male tenants to intimidate the complainant and that this was yet another unprovoked attack on the complainant.
3.4. The complainant maintains that she was advised by the Equality Authority - who had advised her in relation to her first discrimination complaint in 2001- not to pay her rent increases (the complainant alleges that the increases were discriminatory). She further asserts that she also wrote to the Tribunal informing it of her intention not to pay the increases. She maintains that as the Tribunal did not countermand this (she received no reply on the matter), it had given its tacit consent to her withholding her rent increases.
4. Case for the Respondent
4.1. The respondent refutes any discrimination or victimisation. The reason, he stated, why the complainant was presented with a notice to quit was because she had failed to pay her rent increases. The respondent stated that he had not taken any action sooner because the complainant had lodged another complaint with this Tribunal. This complainant had proceeded to an oral hearing a month or so previously but due to the complainant’s behaviour at the beginning of the hearing it had been abandoned. This, he stated, meant that there would be further delay in him receiving his full rent. Subsequent to the aborted hearing, the complainant stated, he obtained legal advice on the matter and started eviction proceedings against the complainant. The only reason for this, he stressed, was the complainant’s refusal to pay the correct rent.
5. Conclusion of the Equality Officer
5.1. In a complaint of discrimination the onus rests with the complainant to establish the facts which he wishes to rely on in making his complaint. It is only when these facts have been established that it is for the respondent to prove contrary.
5.2. The complainant lodged this complaint on the gender and disability grounds. She stated that the complainant would have not behaved in this manner towards her if she was a man or if she had a husband or brother to protect her. In the circumstances presented to me, I do not find that this amounts to less favourable treatment on the gender ground within the meaning of the Act. In relation to disability, I accept that the complainant has a number of health related concerns. I have not been presented with any evidence to suggest that the incident had anything to do with the complainant’s disability.
5.3. Having considered all the evidence presented to me, both orally and in written submissions, I am satisfied that the reason why the respondent issued an eviction notice to the complainant was because of her refusal to pay the rent increases set out in 2001.
5.4. I have not been presented with any evidence to suggest that the treatment was as a result of the complainant having lodged complaints against the respondent with this Tribunal. It is clear that the respondent had held any proceedings against the complainant for approximately two years. The respondent cannot be held responsible for what occurred at the abandoned oral hearing nor for the fact that as a result of the hearing been abandoned, the matter would remain unaddressed for a considerable amount of time. I am also mindful that the eviction proceedings were halted by the respondent as soon as he received the monies owed to him.
6. Decision
In accordance with section 25(4) I conclude my investigation and issue the following decision:
The complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of less favourable treatment on the gender and/or disability grounds. She has also failed to establish a prima facie case of victimisation. Therefore, her complaint fails.
________________
Tara Coogan
Equality Officer
31 October 2008