THE EQUALITY TRIBUNAL
EQUAL STATUS ACTS 2000-2008
DECISION DEC-S2010-047
Parties
A Student
and
Galway, Mayo Institute of Technology
(Represented by Arthur Cox, Solicitors)
File Ref: ES/2008/0019
Date of Issue:20th September, 2010
Keywords
Equal Status Acts 2000-2008 - Section 3(1) - Direct discrimination, Section 3(1)(a) - Disability Ground, Section 3(2)(g) - Reasonable Accommodation, Section 4(1) - Educational Establishment, Section 7(2) - Section 11, Harassment
1. Delegation under the Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2008
1.1 This complaint was referred to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 4th February 2008 under the Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2008. On 1st April, 2009 in accordance with her powers under Section 75 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 and under the Equal Status Act 2000, the Director delegated the complaint to me, James Kelly, 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 hearing of the case took place on 19th May 2010 and the final correspondence in relation to the case was received on 15th June 2010.
2. Dispute
2.1 This dispute concerns a complaint by Ms. B that she was discriminated against by Galway, Mayo Institute of Technology (GMIT) on the disability ground. The complainant maintains that she was discriminated against on the grounds of her disability in terms of Sections 3(1), 3(2)(g) and Section 4 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2008 in not being provided with a service which is generally available to the public contrary to Section 7(2) of the Equal Status Acts, and that she was not provided with reasonable accommodation in attempting to avail of the services that the respondent provided. She also claims that the actions of the respondent amounts to harassment within the meaning of the Section 11 of the Acts.
3. Summary of the Complainant's Case
3.1 The complainant was diagnosed with Fat Embolism Syndrome, which causes difficulties for her physical mobility and she has other neurological complications. Ms. B requires the use of a walking aid to assist her and she has difficult with her memory. Ms. B also suffers from blackouts. Ms. B has provided the Tribunal with an extensive submission which includes a historic commentary of all her interaction with GMIT up to and including her departure from the college on the 3rd November 2007. I have summarised what I have determined as the main points of the complaint in the following paragraphs.
3.2 Ms. B claims that she visited GMIT in Letterfrack on two occasions - August 2006 and November 2006 - with a view to applying for a course in Bachelor of Science in Furniture Conservation and Restoration with the respondent. She applied via the Central Applications Office (CAO) and was accepted onto her chosen course following an interview with the respondent. She claims that she provided the interview panel with a letter from her medical consultant to highlight that she was being investigated for 'blackouts'. However, this letter also stated that her medical condition should not interfere with her course in "conservation and fine art". Prior to starting in the GMIT she contacted it to get information in relation to living accommodation and to discuss her situation in relation to an outstanding appeal for funding that she had with her local Vocational Education Committee (VEC). She claims that she spoke with Mr. A, who was head of department at the time, and she claims that he told her to come along to the college and wait for the outcome of her appeal and he said "present yourself and sit it out". She claims that she was given a list of living accommodation in the Letterfrack area, which she claims was clearly and completely unsuitable for her needs.
3.3 Ms. B claims that she was discriminated against in how she was treated by GMIT in particular in the way she was treated in the workshop/ bench room. She claims that she was requested not to use certain tools without the supervision of the class tutor, which made her uncomfortable, embarrassed and frustrated. She claims that she was signalled out by receiving persistent visits to the class room from the head of department, Mr. A, requesting to set up meetings with her. She claims that these meetings were designed to unsettle her because she believes that the respondent was under the impression that it was unsafe that she would remain on the course and operate the machinery required, even though she had provided the respondent with her consultant's medical letter regarding the same. Ms. B outlined how such disruption caused her stress and that the interruptions were having an adverse effect on her energy levels and on her thought process. She claims that these interruptions meant that she was not getting an equal opportunity compared to the other students.
3.4 Ms. B claims that in light of her medical history she should have been able to avail of various types of funding and that this should have been made available to her via the Access Officer. She claims that she should have had access to the Student Assistance Fund, the Students Support Fund and "the fund for students with disability". However, she claims that none of these were explored by the College on her behalf.
3.5 The complainant claims that she fell outside the College on 17th October 2007 and because of her injuries she was unable to attend College. She claims that there was no contact made by the respondent to see how she was, no one called to visit her and that she made contact with the respondent to enquire about the possibility of deferring the course but she claims she did not get a positive response from the College. She agrees that she did have contact from one of her tutors with responsibility for bench room work and they discussed the possibility of deferring the course and the need for her to speak with the Administrator. She noted in her submission that they discussed that she never actually registered with the College and that may present problems. Ms. B claims that as a result of her experience with the College and due to the total lack of facilities and supports there, she left Letterfrack on the 3rd November 2007. She claims that it was obvious to her that all of the students recognised that she was treated differently by the respondent during her time in GMIT.
3.6 Ms. B also complained about the state of the College grounds: the lack of proper canteen facilities; the failure of the College to provide her with a laptop even though she claims she was promised one; lecture and bench room facilities; health and safety standards; tutor/student communication standards; the Access Officer's role in vetting student accommodation; subject timetabling; the use of continuous assessments by lecturers; lack of access to IT facilities; lack of College notice boards.
4. Summary of the Respondent's Case
4.1 GMIT operates from a number of different campuses including Letterfrack in Connemara, Co. Galway, which caters for approximately 260 students. The courses on offer there are accessible via the normal CAO route and they relate to furniture design, manufacture and restoration. The respondent denies that it discriminated against the complainant on the grounds of her disability and submits that it did all that was reasonable to accommodate her needs by providing special treatment and facilities during her time at the College.
4.2 The respondent accepts that Ms. B visited the campus at Letterfrack in August and November 2006 and expressed an interest in participating in a course entitled Bachelor of Science in Furniture Conservation and Restoration. It claims that the November visit coincided with an 'open day' where Ms. B would have been shown around the College including the bench room where much of the electrical and mechanical tools are set up. The respondent claims that the course coordinator at the time confirmed that he had discussed with Ms. B her obvious mobility issue. It claims that it was agreed that this issue alone would not cause any great difficulty in her participation on the course. The respondent maintains that there were no discussions at this juncture in relation to Ms. B's brain injury or any other neurological issues in particular her 'blackouts'. The respondent confirms that Ms. B was interviewed at GMIT in May 2007 in relation to her application for a place on the Bachelor of Science in Furniture Conservation and Restoration and was subsequently offered a place on this course in August 2007 via the normal CAO process.
4.3 The respondent claims that the campus in Letterfrack does not have on-campus accommodation and therefore students must organise their own accommodation. It claims that the College had no responsibility in that aspect of the student's life in GMIT. It does provide students with a list of available accommodation in the locality for information purposes only. However, the suitability of the property and the letting arrangements are entirely outside of its responsibility. It also claims that the Access Officer in the College has no role in vetting accommodation on behalf of students.
4.4 The respondent claims that Ms. B never registered as a student with the College. It claims that she was appealing a decision of her local VEC over grant funding and accordingly the respondent claims that it facilitated Ms. B with a temporary 'registration' arrangement until a final decision was made in relation to the funding issue. The respondent was quite adamant that it has no responsibility in making the decision over her funding application or subsequent appeal. It claims that it is not the decision making authority in relation to any student's eligibility to a waiver of college fees. This is a matter for the individual student and the relevant VEC.
4.5 The respondent claims that in September 2007 after the course had commenced the respondent received an "Evidence of Disability Form" from the CAO, which it claims was received after the complainant made her original CAO application. This document outlined that Ms. B's disability included "blackouts", which were of a "neurological cause". The respondent claims that this was the first time that it became aware of this element of her disability and considering that the course required active participation in a bench room environment surrounded by power tools and other such potentially dangerous equipment, therefore it felt that it needed to address the situation immediately. The respondent claims that up to this point the only supports that the complainant had indicated on her CAO form was "accessible accommodation and a laptop". The respondent claims it became acutely aware of the potential health and safety difficulty for both Ms. B and her fellow students due to her medical condition. Accordingly, it sought to approach the complainant with a view to managing the situation is the most suitable way for the complainant, staff and her fellow students.
4.6 The respondent claims it never received any medical letter/report from the complainant's consultant, as is claimed by the complainant, until after Ms. B had left the College. However, in response to this letter/report submitted in evidence - which suggested that Ms. B's condition would not impair her participation in "Fine Art Conservation", - it states that the course Ms. B had applied for was in Furniture Conservation Restoration, which is fundamentality different in content to "Fine Art Conservation". Mr. A also claims that Ms. B admitted to him that having started the course she was unaware that the course required her to use power tools and woodwork machinery as part of the programme. Accordingly, the respondent claims that the medical assessment would appear to have been carried out without the appropriate information of the actual practical reality of the programme that Ms. B had applied for. It claims that the Access Officer provides a wide range of supports for a number of students in GMIT, and would have willingly provided the same to Ms. B should they be required. Therefore, it was necessary to determine what needs existed. Accordingly, it claims that it asked Ms. B to attend the GMIT Doctor for assessment and where a statement of needs could be carried out and an action plan could be put in place to access whatever services or assistance she required. It claims that the cost would be fully covered by it. The respondent also claims that Ms. B was provided with additional support from her tutors while at GMIT particularly in the bench room when using the hand tools and other equipment. The respondent was upset with the allegation that she was not given additional support when it claims it clearly was not the case.
4.7 The respondent claims that Mr. A attempted to set up meetings with Ms. B to discuss her outstanding registration with the College and to arrange a meeting with its doctor. However, it claims that she would not cooperate and the respondent became frustrated by her lack of engagement and cooperation. Mr. A claims that he did contact the complainant in the class room on two occasions, as no mobile phones were allowed in class, both of which were to arrange/rearrange meetings at short notice. He claims that he was never asked by Ms. B not to contact her in the class rooms. The respondent outlined its frustration at the difficulty it had in trying to engage with the complainant.
4.8 The respondent, in reply to Ms. B's claim that she was not given the same opportunity to use tools in class or to bring work home, stated that the tool kits were the student's property and they could do with them as they see fit. It claims that the bench room tutor had to make an assessment on each student's ability to work unsupervised with the power tools where everyone had different abilities. It claims that this is in the best interest of health and safety.
4.9 The respondent understands that Ms. B had an accident outside of the College on the evening of the 22nd October 2007, and it claims that it made contact with the hospital to check on her and offer assistance. It disputes the claim that Ms. B was told that she could not defer her bench room work, on the contrary the respondent claims that had any student experience difficulties for a particular reason they would be facilitated had they approached the College. The respondent gave evidence of another student with a disability who attended the College in and around the same time as Ms. B and where extensive supports were put in place to facilitate the student to remain on the course. The respondent claims that it understands that Ms. B's appeal of the VEC decision not to pay her fees was upheld, and she failed to return to the College.
4.10 The respondent states that Ms. B's claim that her inability to access the various student and disability funding was a further example of less favourable treatment was untrue. It claims that the funds are applied for in October and February each year and eligibility for these funds require that the registered students are required to provide a "Needs Assessment Report" and other additional information in relation to the student's registration. It claims that Ms. B had not registered with the College and was not engaging with the respondent in relation to its "Need Assessment Report" with the college doctor. Accordingly, this prevented her application in October but the respondent was clear that she could have availed of funding if all the requirements were in order by the following February. The respondent claimed it still provided students with disabilities with support and services regardless of the level of funding. It claims that this was no different in Ms. B's case. The respondent went on to give extensive and specific details of the services it offers to students with disabilities.
4.11 The respondent contends that the complainant's complaint is limited to a) Harassment and b) failure to provide reasonable accommodation. It claims that the allegation of discrimination and less favourable treatment on the grounds of disability is out of time on the basis that the reference to discrimination was omitted from the Form ES3 that was referred to the Equality Tribunal on the 4th February 2008 and that such reference was only contained in the complainant's submissions dated 19th January 2010, which is well outside the time limits set out under Section 21(6). Notwithstanding, it claims that GMIT did not discriminate against the complainant on the disability grounds. It claims that in the circumstances presenting it was obliged to take action to ensure the safety for all its staff and students, including Ms. B. To that end, it asked me to consider the provisions of section 4(4) of the Acts where it states, that,
Where a person has a disability that, in the circumstances, could cause harm to the person or to others, treating the person differently to the extent reasonably necessary to prevent such harm does not constitute discrimination.
5. Conclusions of the Equality Officer in relation to the substantive issue
5.1 The Equality Officer must first consider whether the existence of a prima facie case has been established by the Complainant. Section 38A of the Equal Status Acts sets out the burden of proof which applies in a claim of discrimination. It requires the complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts upon which she can rely in asserting that prohibited conduct has occurred in relation to her. 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. In making my decision, I have taken into account all of the evidence, written and oral, made to me by the parties to the case.
5.2 Having regard to the circumstances of this case, I have to consider a number of key questions in relation to this case which I must address in considering whether a prima facie case of discrimination and harassment has been established by the complainant in whether she was treated less favourably than another person in a comparable situation because of her disability. In considering these questions and based on the evidence presented, I am satisfied that the complainant is covered by the specific ground under the Equal Status Acts.
Issue of Jurisdiction
5.3 Firstly, I must determine whether I have jurisdiction to consider the discrimination aspect of the complaint. The respondent has submitted that since this element of the complaint was not contained in the original Form ES3 received by the Equality Tribunal on the 4th February 2008 therefore, this element has been referred outside of the time limits as provided for under the Acts. Section 21 of the Equal Status Acts sets out the procedure for a person who claims that prohibited conduct has been directed against him/her. Section 21(2)(a) makes provision for the time limits to which a complainant is obliged to adhere to before a complaint can be deemed admissible and this subsection also includes that the complainant shall notify the respondent of the nature of the allegation (section 21(2)(a)(i)). I note that the reference to discrimination and less favourable treatment on the grounds of disability was contained in the notification form, Form ES1, which was sent by the complainant to the respondent to notify it of her complaint. I also note that the notification Form ES1 was included as part of the extensive submission received by the Director of the Equality Tribunal attached to Form ES3. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the respondent was put on notice of that element of the complaint and that the notification formed part of the referral documentation of the complaint to the Tribunal. I am satisfied that the respondent is in no way set at a disadvantage and I am satisfied that I have jurisdiction to investigate this matter.
Discriminatory Treatment
5.4 I will now consider whether the complainant was discriminated against by the respondent because of her disability in terms of Section 3(1)(a) and Section 3(2)(g). I am satisfied that the complainant applied for and was accepted into GMIT on to the course of her choice. I note that the respondent was aware that the complainant had a disability. However, it claims that the full extent of her disability was not realised until later in her time in the College, when it discovered that her disability could lead to her having blackouts where she could fall.
5.5 In relation to the issue of 'student accommodation', I note that the respondent clearly states that it does not provide any student accommodation and accordingly, students are left to their own devices to secure suitable accommodation for themselves. I am satisfied that Ms. B was treated the same as all other GMIT students namely, she was presented with a list of available accommodation in the area and was left to make the arrangements herself. No evidence was presented to establish that the complainant was subjected to less favourable treatment than another person in similar circumstances on the grounds of her disability in terms of the manner in which she was treated by the respondent. Accordingly, I find that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the disability ground on this aspect of the claim in terms of Section 3(1)(a) and Section 3(2)(g) of the Equal Status Acts.
5.6 In relation to the issue of the 'bench room', I note that Ms. B claims that she was treated differently in the use of the tools in class and that she was not allowed to bring work home. I note the respondent claims that the lecturer had to supervise all students while they operated the various tools and equipment in the bench room. I have been presented with photographs of the bench room and I am under no illusion that the equipment used would prove to be an obvious health and safety threat to some one that is unaccustomed or unskilled in the operation of such equipment. Accordingly, I would presume that the skilled supervision of the tutor is essential for the use of such equipment and his/her opinion would be paramount in determining who has the skills to use that equipment unsupervised. Accordingly, I am satisfied that any decision in that respect is made in relation to the student's skills. No evidence was presented to establish that the complainant was subjected to less favourable treatment than another person in similar circumstances on the grounds of her disability in terms of the manner in which she was treated by the respondent. Accordingly, I find that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the disability ground on this aspect of the claim in terms of Section 3(1)(a) and Section 3(2)(g) of the Equal Status Acts.
5.7 In relation to the claim that Mr. A came into the complainant's class room on a number of occasions and interrupted Ms. B and that this caused her a serious amount of stress and embarrassment. I note the evidence that Mr. A claims that he did on two occasions interrupt class to get a message to Ms. B in relation to a scheduled meeting and then the need to rearrange this meeting at short notice. Ms. B claims that she had asked him not to interrupt her because of the distress it causes her, whereas Mr. A denies this. I have noted that the interruptions were deemed necessary to arrange a meeting with Ms. B and to subsequently make changes to arrangements, at short notice, and that no mobile phones were allowed in the class room. I am satisfied that this was a reasonable approach in the circumstances. No evidence was presented to establish that the complainant was subjected to less favourable treatment than another person in similar circumstances on the grounds of her disability in terms of the manner in which she was treated by the respondent. Accordingly, I find that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the disability ground in this aspect of the claim in terms of Section 3(1)(a) and Section 3(2)(g) of the Equal Status Acts.
5.8 In relation to the claim that the complainant was not afforded the opportunity to access funding to assist her in GMIT. I note and accept that the respondent had no input in relation to the application and subsequent appeal of the complainant's case before her local VEC. Therefore, I am satisfied that it has no case to answer in relation to this aspect of the case. I note that the complainant claims that she was refused the opportunity to avail of the other various funding channels available to students by the respondent. I have noted the respondent's claim that the complainant only requested the use of "a laptop" and there were no mention of additional supports or services. I note the evidence from the respondent that as Ms. B did not register as a student and failed to cooperate to have a needs assessment that therefore she was not eligible for the various funding at the time. No other evidence was presented to establish that the complainant was subjected to less favourable treatment than another person in similar circumstances on the grounds of her disability in terms of the manner in which she was treated by the respondent. Accordingly, I find that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the disability ground in this aspect of the claim in terms of Section 3(1)(a) and Section 3(2)(g) of the Equal Status Acts.
5.9 In relation to the various complaints mentioned is paragraph 3.6 above, I have considered the evidence presented in relation to these aspects and I am satisfied that there is no evidence to establish that the complainant was subjected to less favourable treatment than another person in similar circumstances on the grounds of her disability in terms of the manner in which she was treated by the respondent. Accordingly, I find that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the disability ground in this aspect of the claim in terms of Section 3(1)(a) and Section 3(2)(g) of the Equal Status Acts.
Reasonable Accommodation
5.10 In the case of disability in considering whether discrimination occurred, consideration must be also made to the issue of the provision of reasonable accommodation to a disabled person. Section 4 of the Equal Status Acts 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".
The question that I must address here is whether the respondent did all that was reasonable to accommodate the needs of the complainant, as a person with a disability, by providing special treatment or facilities. The Acts require the complainant to show, in the circumstances of this case, that the respondent did not do everything it reasonably could do to accommodate her needs as a person with a disability in terms of facilitating her access to avail of its service.
5.11 In considering whether the respondent has discharged its obligations under Section 4 of the Acts in the present case, I must examine whether it did all that was reasonable, in the circumstances, to provide special treatment or facilities in order to facilitate the complainant further. Therefore I am obliged to examine whether the respondent could have implemented any further special measures or facilities, other than what was done in order to accommodate the needs of the complainant. The question as to what constitutes "reasonable accommodation" has previously been addressed in many employment equality cases where the emphasis has been placed on the failure of the employer to engage in an acceptable level of consultation of the specific needs of a person with a disability. The Equality Tribunal and the Labour Court likewise have issued many decisions requiring a high standard of consultation in such cases and I am of the view that similar standards should be applied in cases that have been referred under the Equal Status Acts, considering that the legal provisions are effectively the same. Accordingly, I have noted the findings of the Labour Court in A Health and Fitness Club -v- A Worker where it is stated "before coming to the view [that the employee was not capable to do the job by reason of her disability], the employer would normally be required to make adequate enquiries so as to establish fully the factual position in relation to the employee's capacity. The nature and extent of the enquiries which an employer should make will depend on the circumstances of each case. At a minimum, however, an employer should ensure that he or she is in full possession of all of the material facts concerning the employees condition, and that the employee is given fair notice [if extreme measures, such as dismissal for incapacity are under consideration].".
Although I accept that there is an obvious difference between the employment and equal status context and that one would expect the standard of "reasonable accommodation" in an employment situation to be higher than that between a service provider and a customer because of the likelihood of a more permanent ongoing relationship between the employer and employee. However, I consider that the standard must clearly be the same for something as basic as the need to consult with the person with the disability.
5.12 I am satisfied that the respondent actively tried to engage in a process of consultation with the complainant. Having regard to the evidence it is clear that the respondent is adamant that when it became clear that the complainant had a disability that could cause her to fall in the class room it needed to address the situation as soon as possible, particularly, when the class room environment involved power tools and potentially dangerous machinery/equipment. However, I note that the respondent attempted to address this with the complainant on a number of occasions but it was not getting cooperation from the complainant. I note that the respondent had offered the complainant the option to contact and consult with her own medical consultant rather than the GMIT doctor if she felt more comfortable with that arrangement. It is evident that the requirement for a medical assessment of needs was essential given the nature of the dangerous machinery/equipment. It is also evident that the medical assessment of needs would have benefited the complainant and could have assisted her in accessing other services available at GMIT. However, it would appear that no progression was ever made on that front despite the respondent's consistent efforts to try to get the complainant to engage with it. Having regard to the foregoing, I find that the respondent did not fail in its obligation under Section 4 of the Equal Status Acts to do all that was reasonable to accommodate the needs of the complainant as a person with a disability, in the circumstances of the present case, by providing special measures or facilities.
5.13 I also note that the respondent has relied upon the provisions of section 4(4) of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2008 in defence of its position in the way it dealt with the complainant where it claims that its actions did not amount to discrimination against the complainant on the grounds of his disability. Section 4(4) of the Acts provides as follows:
"(4) Where a person has a disability that, in circumstances, could cause harm to the person or to others, treating the person differently to the extent reasonably necessary to prevent such harm does not constitute discrimination"
As I have already found that the alleged discriminatory treatment in this case did not amount to less favourable treatment on the grounds of her disability or a failure to provide reasonable accommodation within the meaning of Section 4 of the Acts, it is therefore not necessary for me to consider the aforementioned provisions of the Acts in my deliberations on this matter.
Harassment
5.14 The matter for consideration here is whether the complainant was harassed by the respondent within the meaning of Section 11 of the Equal Status Acts. The appropriate provisions of the Acts are set out below.
11. -- (1) A person shall not sexually harass or harass (within the meaning of subsection (4) or (5)) another person (''the victim'') where the victim --
(a) avails or seeks to avail himself or herself of any service provided by the person or purchases or seeks to purchase any goods being disposed of by the person,
(2) A person (''the responsible person'') who is responsible for the operation of any place that is an educational establishment or at which goods, services or accommodation facilities are offered to the public shall not permit another person who has a right to be present in or to avail himself or herself of any facilities, goods or services provided at that place, to suffer sexual harassment or harassment at that place.
(4) A person's rejection of, or submission to, sexual or other harassment may not be used by any other person as a basis for a decision affecting that person.
(5) (a) In this section --
(i) references to harassment are to any form of unwanted conduct related to any of the discriminatory grounds, and
(ii) references to sexual harassment are to any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, being conduct which in either case has the purpose or
effect of violating a person's dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the person.
(b) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a), such unwanted conduct may consist of acts, requests, spoken words, gestures or the production, display or circulation of written words, pictures or other material.
5.15 The complainant claimed that she was subjected to harassment by Mr. A contrary to the provisions of Section 11(5) of the Equal Status Acts in terms of the manner in which he dealt with her on a personal level, in particular by interrupting her during class and trying to arrange meetings/appointments. In response the respondent has set out how Mr. A tried to on many occasion communicate with Ms. B but found her less than cooperative. I have noted that Mr. A emphatically denies that he subjected the complainant to any kind of behaviour that could be construed as harassment during the course of his interaction with her. In considering this issue, I have found the evidence of Mr. A to be very credible in terms of the manner in which he dealt with the complainant. I am satisfied that the respondent was presented with a challenging set of circumstances and attempted to get a solution for the benefit of both Ms. B, and the staff and students of GMIT. I am satisfied that Mr. A acted in an appropriate and professional manner. Moreover, the evidence presented shows that he went far beyond his role in an attempt to assist Ms. B - by offering to help the complainant with her search for accommodation. However, I have not been presented with any evidence from which I could reasonably conclude that the respondent acted in anything other than a professional manner in terms of its interaction with the complainant. Having regard to the foregoing, I find that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of harassment within the meaning of Section 11(5) of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2008.
6. Decision
6.1 In accordance with section 25(4) of the Equal Status Acts, I conclude this investigation and issue the following decision.
6.2 On the basis of the foregoing I find that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the disability ground in terms of Sections 3(1), 3(2)(g) and 4(1) of the Equal Status Acts, and accordingly, I find in favour of the respondent.
6.3 I find that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of harassment on the disability ground in terms of section 11(5) of the Equal Status Acts. Accordingly, I find in favour of the respondent in this matter.
______________________
James Kelly
Equality Officer
The Equality Tribunal
20th September, 2010