THE EQUALITY TRIBUNAL
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS 1998-2008
DEC - E2011-250
Parties
Siobhan Mahon
versus
Acorn Fashions
File reference: EE/2008/809
Date of issue: 19th December 2011
Keywords: Employment Equality Acts, Disability, Imputed Disability, Access to employment, No prima facie case
1. Dispute
1.1 The case concerns a claim by Ms Siobhan Mahon against Acorn Fashions, a manufacturer of workwear and uniforms. Her claim is that she was discriminated against in relation to access to employment, on the grounds of disability in terms of 6(2) (g) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 - 2011 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Acts']. The complainant is left-handed and she claims that the respondent imputed this as a disability.
1.2 The complainant referred a complaint under the Acts on the 28th November 2008 to the Director of the Equality Tribunal. On 27th January 2011, in accordance with his powers under Section 75 of the Acts, the Director delegated the case to me, Orlaith Mannion, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part VII of the Acts. On this date, my investigation commenced. Submissions were received from both parties and a joint hearing was held on 22nd November 2011 as required by Section 79(1) of the Acts.
2. Summary of the complainant's case
2.1 The complainant saw an advertisement for a Presser/Sewing Machinist for the respondent in a local newspaper in August 2008. She applied for the position. At the interview Mr A, Supervisor with Acorn Fashions asked whether she had experience as a machinist. The complainant submitted that she said was very familiar with sewing machines but had not worked as a machinist since she was 17. He asked whether she had recent experience of other factory work. She replied by giving examples of where she had worked. He then spoke about the salary involved.
2.2 Towards the end of the interview, he asked her whether she was right-handed or left-handed. According to her, Mr. A said 'We consider being left-handed here a disability. You can get a left-handed scissors but not a left-handed sewing machine'. She submits that she left the interview very annoyed and disheartened. On 22nd September, she received a letter from Acorn Fashions stating that she had been unsuccessful in her application. However, the position continued to be advertised from 23rd October 2008 to 21st November 2008.
3.Summary of the respondent's case
3.1 The respondent was established in 1988 and employs four people in the production line. In direct evidence, Mr A admits that he asked the complainant whether she was left-handed in the interview. This was because the company, as standard practice, orders a left-handed shears for left-handed employees. The shears costs £20 (sterling) so, the respondent submits, it would not be a barrier to employing a left-handed person. Either a left-handed or a right-handed person can use all other equipment there. Mr A stated he has interviewed thousands of people in his 35 years in the clothing industry and that he would never say being left-handed is a disability. He said that he is naturally left-handed but was trained in school to use his right-hand. He also said that his daughter is left-handed, that she is exceptionally well-qualified and that he would never think of her as disabled in any way. He said he would never discriminate against somebody because of them being left-handed.
3.2 The respondent submitted the interview notes of the recruitment campaign. The interviewees were graded under the following headings
- Adaptability to training
- Willingness to work
- Skill and experience
- Communication
Acorn fashions submit that the complainant was not selected for the next stage of the recruitment process because she did not have recent experience as a machinist. They submit that experience is very important with them as they have such a small production line.
3.3 Mr B, owner of Acorn fashions, also gave evidence. He gave examples of left-handed people who worked on the production line for twelve years at Acorn fashions. He pointed out that Tommy Hilfinger, the fashion designer, is left-handed. Mr B stated that the advertisement remained on the FÁS website even after he asked them to take it down.
4.Conclusions of the Equality Officer
4.1. Section 6(1) of the Act provides that discrimination shall be taken to occur where on any of the discriminatory grounds mentioned in subsection (2) one person is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated. The discriminatory ground in this case is disability. Therefore, the issue for me to decide is whether the complainant suffered discriminatory treatment in relation to access of employment. In reaching my decision, I have taken into account all of the submissions, written and oral, made by the parties.
4.2 In evaluating the evidence before me, I must first consider whether the complainant has established a prima facie case pursuant to Section 85A of the Act. The Labour Court has held consistently that the facts from which the occurrence of discrimination may be inferred must be of 'sufficient significance' before a prima facie case is established and the burden of proof shifts to the respondent.
4.3 Disability is defined in Section 2 of the Acts:
(a) the total or partial absence of a person's bodily or mental functions including the absence of a part of a person's body
(b) the presence in the body of organisms causing, or likely to cause chronic disease or illness
(c) the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of a person's body
(d) a condition or malfunction which results in a person learning differently form a person without the condition or malfunction
(e) a condition, illness or disease which affects a person's thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgement or which results in disturbed behaviour.
The complainant submits that she has been discriminated against because of an imputed disability (left-handedness). Impute is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as
1. regard (especially a fault or a crime) as being done or caused or possessed by; attribute or ascribe to the discredit of
2. reckon, take into account; consider
3. Charge or arraign with a fault etc, accuse
4. impart.
In the circumstances of this case, I do not accept that being left-handed is a disability within the meaning of the Acts. Neither am I satisfied that the respondent imputed a disability to Ms Mahon in this instant case.
4.4 Generally, I preferred the evidence of the respondent. I am satisfied that the recruitment process was conducted fairly. I do not accept the complainant's contention that Mr A said to her that being left-handed was viewed as a disability in Acorn fashions. The respondent gave evidence of left-handed employees who worked there without difficulty. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, the complainant has not established a prima facie case that she was discriminated against because of an imputed disability regarding access to employment.
Decision
I have concluded my investigation of Ms Mahon's complaint. Based on all of the foregoing, I find, pursuant to Section 79(6) of the Act, that
(i) the respondent has not discriminated against the complainant on the grounds of disability regarding access to employment
Therefore, I find against the complainant.
_____________
Orlaith Mannion
Equality Officer