Equal Status Acts 2000 - 2008
Decision DEC-S2010-007
A Mature Student
V
A College
Key words
Equal Status Acts - Direct discrimination, section 3(1)(a) - Age and Disability grounds, section 3(2)(f) and section 3(2)(g) - Provisional of Reasonable Accommodation, section 4
1 Delegation under the Equal Status Acts
The complainant referred a claim to the Director of the Equality Tribunal under the Equal Status Acts, 2000 -2004. On the 17 October 2008, in accordance with her powers under section 75 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and under the Equal Status Acts, the Director delegated the case to myself, Brian O'Byrne, 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, 2000-2008, on which date my investigation commenced. As required by 25(1) and as part of my investigation, I proceeded to hearing on the 28 October 2009.
2 Dispute
This dispute concerns a complaint by a mature student that he was discriminated against on the age and disability grounds in not being provided with reasonable accommodation by the College to enable him to successfully re-sit the final year of his 4 year course.
3 Summary of Hearing
3.1 The Hearing of this complaint was held on 28 October 2009. The Hearing was attended by the complainant and representatives from the College. As the case before me dealt with many incidents over a period of 6 or 7 years, the incidents were dealt with in chronological order at the Hearing with both parties being invited to provide evidence in relation to each incident as it was being dealt with. Overall, there was a general consensus over what had occurred and the principal pieces of evidence provided with regard to the allegations under investigation were as follows:
3.2 Evidence was given that the student successfully attended and completed the first three years of his BA Degree course without any problem. The course was funded by the Department of Education and the student was only required to pay the college registration fee himself.
During the 4th year of his Degree course, the student suffered health problems which resulted in him falling behind in his studies and failing to meet deadlines for essays etc.
Following a short stay in hospital where he was diagnosed with nephrotic syndrome, the complainant said that in early March 2003 he requested a meeting with the BA Course Coordinator to discuss obtaining an extension for his project work. He said, however, that he was not facilitated with this meeting until 11 April at which time his request for an extension was refused and he was told that the only option available to him was to withdraw from the course and repeat 4th year the following September.
The complainant claimed that this action constituted discrimination on the grounds of disability under Section 4(1) of the Equal Status Acts, alleging that the respondents had failed to provide him with the reasonable accommodation he needed to complete his studies and sit his exams.
3.3 At the Hearing, the BA Coordinator gave evidence that the student first sought a meeting with him on 21 February 2003 but that his Secretary told the student that he was not available to meet him that day as it was the last day before the mid-term break. The Secretary did, however, send the student a memo on 21 February (a copy of which was produced at the Hearing) inviting him to contact her to make an appointment for the week after the mid-term but this was not followed up on.
The BA-Coordinator said that the student next sought to meet him on 9 April and that they met in the Coffee Dock on 11 April 2003. The BA Coordinator's recollection of that meeting is that the student arrived seeking permission to withdraw from 4th Year and re-register in September 2003 on medical grounds. He says that he does not recall having any discussion with regard to the student being given an extension to submit an essay. In any event, he said that the final exams were scheduled for three weeks hence and, at most, he could have only granted him an extension of a few days which would not have been of much benefit to the student.
When asked about this observation at the Hearing, the student accepted that even if he had been granted a short extension on 11 April that it would have been of little help to him as it would have impinged on the time available to him to study for his exams.
3.4 The complainant returned to the College in September 2003 and re-registered for 4th year. He said that he did understand at the time that, without an exemption from the Department of Education, that he was liable for the full registration and tuition costs of €4092 for the year. During the course of the year he paid a total of €1500 to the College. He also received several reminders from the Bursar that payment of the outstanding €2592 was "a condition of continuing the course and taking examinations in it". The student did not complete his repeat 4th year for medical reasons.
In Sept 2004, the student registered for a module in psychology and paid the appropriate fees. The respondents stated that when this came to the Bursar's attention in November 2004, he expressed surprise that the student had been allowed register given the €2592 outstanding fees from the previous year. He recommended that the students position "be looked into" which resulted in his exam results being withheld that year because of the outstanding fees.
In September 2005 the student again sought to register with the College but was not permitted to do so until such time as the matter of the outstanding fees had been addressed.
In September 2006, he sought to register again with the College and met the new Bursar to explain his position. He said that he wanted to establish what accommodation the College could afford him and what it would cost. He said that the Bursar told him he would put the matter of his registration before the Board. Having received no reply, he said that he returned to the College on 15 September to find that they had declined to accept his registration over the arrears of fees.
3.5 In September 2007, the complainant was allowed to register for his 4th Year having personally paid his arrears in full. Towards the end of the academic year he was granted an extension, for medical reasons, to complete his extended essay. This essay was eventually submitted and passed in 2009 and the complainant was awarded his full Degree on 21 October 2009.
4 Conclusions of the Equality Officer
4.1 In cases such as this, the burden of proof lies with the complainant who, in order to demonstrate that a prima facie case exists, must establish facts from which it may be presumed that prohibited conduct has occurred. On establishment of these facts, the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent who, in order to successfully defend his case, must show that his actions were driven by factors which were non-discriminatory or unreasonable.
4.2 In the case before me, the complainant claims that he was not afforded reasonable accommodation by the College and that this initially prevented him from successfully completing his studies in 2003 and subsequently prevented him from re-sitting his final year until 2007. He claims that his first request for reasonable accommodation was in March 2003 and the last in September 2006.
4.3 In considering the events of February to April 2003, the evidence before me indicates that the student verbally sought a meeting with the BA Coordinator on 21 February 2003 but could not be facilitated until after the mid-term break. It also appears that the complainant did not make the appointment for after the mid-term break as requested (this could be explained by the fact that the complainant was hospitalised for a short period in early March 2003).
The next request for a meeting appears to have been made on 9 April 2003 at which point an arrangement was made for him to meet the BA Coordinator on 11 April 2003. From the evidence before me with regard to that meeting, I am satisfied that discussions focused more on the student re-registering in September 2003 rather than he being provided with extra accommodation to enable him to successfully finish 4th Year in May 2003.
4.4 With regard to the complainant's claim that it was the failure of the College to provide him with reasonable accommodation that prevented him from re-registering for 4th Year, I am satisfied from the evidence before me that this was not the case and that the decision to refuse his registration was guided solely by the fact that fees remained outstanding for a number of years in respect of the 2003/2004 year. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the complainant was not discriminated against on the disability ground over the period 2003 to 2006.
From consideration of the information and documentation presented to me, I am also satisfied that there is no evidence to support the view that the complainant suffered discrimination on the age ground.
5 Decision
I find that a prima facie case has not been established on the disability or age grounds in terms of the provisions of the Equal Status Acts 2000 – 2008. Accordingly, I find in favour of the respondents in the matter.
Brian O’Byrne
Equality Officer
27 January 2010