THE EQUALITY TRIBUNAL
EQUAL STATUS ACTS 2000 - 2008
Decision DEC-S2011-003
PARTIES
Mrs. K
(and on behalf of her son)
and
A Primary School
(represented by Hassett Considine Solicitors)
File Reference: ES/2008/197
Date of Issue: 18th January, 2011
Keywords
Equal Status Acts, 2000-2008 - Direct discrimination, Section 3(1)(a) - Family Status Ground, Section 3(2)(c) - Race Ground, section 3(2)(h) - Traveller community Ground, Section 3(2)(i) - Victimization, section 3(2)(j) - Access to Education, Section 7(2) - Harassment, section 11
Delegation under the Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2008
This complaint was referred to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 7th October, 2008 under the Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2008. On 12th March, 2010, 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, Enda Murphy, 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, 2000-2004 on which date my investigation commenced. As required by Section 25(1) and as part of my investigation, I proceeded to hearing on 24th November, 2010.
Dispute
1.1 Mrs. K claims that both she and her son were discriminated against by the respondent on the grounds of their family status, race and membership of the Traveller community in terms of sections 3(1), 3(2)(c), 3(2)(h), 3(2)(i) of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2008 and contrary to section 7(2) of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2008 in terms of the manner in which it dealt with her son's application for enrolment at the respondent's primary school during the academic year 2007/2008. Mrs. K also claimed that she was subjected to victimisation and harassment contrary to sections 3(2)(j) and 11(1) of the Equal Status Acts.
Summary of the Complainant's Case
2.1 The complainants, Mrs. K and her son returned to live in the town where the respondent is located after having previously resided in England and Dublin for a period of time. Mrs. K stated that she made contact with the respondent in September, 2007 (through her sister-in-law) with the intention of having her son enrolled at the school for the school year 2007/2008. Mrs. K stated that the School Secretary, Ms. C, arranged an appointment for her to meet with the School Principal; however, she claims that she received a telephone call from the School Secretary, Ms. C, three days later to say that the appointment was cancelled and that her son could not be enrolled because the school was full. Mrs. K subsequently contacted Ms. A, Visiting Teacher for Travellers (VTT), and it was decided to send a letter to the respondent on 16th November, 2007 making a formal application for the enrolment of her son at the school. Mrs. K received a reply to this letter from the respondent on 11th December, 2007 requesting confirmation that the application for enrolment was, in fact, from them as their letter initially had not been signed.
2.2 The VTT, Ms. A, sent a further letter to the respondent (on behalf of the complainants) on 19th December, 2007 seeking a formal reply to their application for enrolment. Mrs. K referred the respondent to the provisions of the Educational Welfare Act, 2000 in this letter which provides that a written request for enrolment must be responded to within a period of 21 days. The VTT, Ms. A, had a meeting with the School Principal, Mr. B, in February, 2008 in order to discuss Mrs. K's application for enrolment of her son; however, there was no agreement reached following this meeting regarding their application. Mrs. K decided to refer an appeal under section 29 of the Education Act, 1998 to the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Science in relation to the respondent's refusal to grant their son's application for enrolment at the school. This appeal was scheduled to take place on 8th April, 2008. However, Mrs. K stated that she received a visit from one of the respondent's teachers on 2nd April, 2008 and she was informed by this teacher that her son would be enrolled at the school if she agreed to withdraw the appeal under section 29 of the Education Act, 1998. Mrs. K stated that she signed a waiver to withdraw the appeal on the basis that her son could commence at the school the following week.
2.3 Mrs. K stated that she went to the school the following day to make the relevant arrangements for her son to be enrolled. Mrs. K stated that she met with Mr. B, School Principal, for the first time on this occasion and he gave her an enrolment form to complete and other documentation including the school's regulations and a book list for her son. Mrs. K stated that she informed Mr. B that she would need a bit of time to get the books and uniform for her son because she was on social welfare benefits and she requested if he could start without the books and uniform. However, she claims that Mr. B refused to accede to this request and he insisted that her son would have to have a uniform and the books before he could attend the school. Mrs. K stated that she contacted the local Community Welfare Officer to see if she could obtain financial assistance to acquire the books and uniform and she was informed that she would need a letter from the school to confirm that her son was attending the school. Mrs. K stated that she went to the school and requested this letter from the School Secretary, Ms. C, but was informed that such a letter could not be issued as her son was not actually attending the school at that juncture. Mrs. K stated that she approached Mr. B, who was standing at the gate, as she left the school premises and attempted to talk to him about this issue but that he completely ignored her and indicated that she would need to make an appointment. Mrs. K denied that she became verbally abusive towards either the School Secretary or Mr. B during the course of her conversations with them on this date.
2.4 Mrs. K stated that she subsequently contacted the VTT who managed to arrange for financial assistance to be provided by the Community Welfare Officer so that she could obtain the school uniform for her son. Mrs. K stated that she brought her son to the school the following Monday wearing the proper uniform and that she met Mr. B in the school corridor. Mrs. K stated that Mr. B requested her to apologise for the way that she had spoken to him and the School Secretary on the previous occasion. Mrs. K stated that she apologised to Mr. B even-though she had not been abusive on the previous occasion. She stated that Mr. B informed her that he would not admit her son to the school until he had the proper books and he indicated that she would have to take her son home from school again that day. Mrs. K contacted the VTT again and she was able to source financial assistance from the St. Vincent de Paul with the cost of obtaining the books for her son.
2.5 Mrs. K stated that she returned to the school with her son on 21st April, 2008, who now had the appropriate books and uniform, and spoke to Mr. B upon her arrival at the school. Mrs. K stated that Mr. B spoke to her in a degrading manner and referred to a number of errors that she had made in completing the enrolment form. Mrs. K stated that Mr. B also informed her that her son could not commence at the school that day unless she produced a copy of his birth certificate. Mrs. K stated that she felt the respondent was attempting to place one obstacle after another in her way in order to prevent her son from starting at the school. Mrs. K stated that her son became very upset at this stage and informed her that he did not want to go to the school. Mrs. K stated that she also became very upset because of the way she was being treated by Mr. B and she accepts that she called him a "racist b.....d" purely out of frustration at the manner in which she had been treated by him. Mrs. K stated that she decided not to continue to pursue the enrolment at that juncture as she felt that her son would not be treated properly in the school. Mrs. K stated that she did not have any further contact with the school following this meeting with Mr. B and she sought a placement for him in another school where he commenced in September, 2008.
2.6 Mrs. K claims that the respondent sought to exclude her son from the school because of his Traveller identity. Mrs. K also claimed that she was subjected to harassment and victimisation in terms of the manner in which the application for the enrolment of her son was dealt with by the respondent.
Summary of the Respondent's Case
3.1 The respondent denies that it discriminated against the complainants on any of the grounds claimed. The respondent is a national school and it catered for approx. 570 pupils during the school year 2007/2008. The respondent submitted that it has an open enrolment policy regardless of the background of the child and the fact that a child is a member of the Traveller community or a non-Irish national is not a factor that is taken into consideration when deciding upon applications for enrolment. The respondent submitted that there were 27 members of the Traveller community enrolled at the school during the school year 2007/08 and that currently 25% of the students come from a non-Irish background. The respondent also submitted that it has enrolled a total of 19 children with the same surname as the complainants between 1997 and 2009 including two of the complainants other sons.
3.2 The respondent stated that the School Secretary, Ms. C, received a telephone call from an unidentified person during September, 2007 after the school year had commenced. Mrs. C stated that the caller made enquiries about the possibility of enrolling a child in fifth class; however, she informed the caller that both of the classes in that particular year were full as there were thirty three students in each class. Mrs. C stated that the caller did not indicate whether or not she was a member of the Traveller community nor did she express any dissatisfaction in relation to the information that had been conveyed to her. Mrs. C stated that she did not have any recollection of telephoning the complainant in September, 2007 to say that an appointment with the School Principal had been cancelled. The respondent stated it did not receive any formal contact from the Mrs. K regarding the enrolment of her son at the school until it received an unsigned letter from her (and her husband) on 26th November, 2007 which was addressed to the Chairman of the Board of Management (this letter was dated 16th November, 2007 by the complainants). The respondent stated that it replied to Mrs. K's letter on 11th December, 2007 and requested confirmation that it had, in fact, been sent by them as their initial letter had not been signed.
3.3 The respondent stated that it received a further letter from Mrs. K on 16th January, 2008 which formally requested the enrolment of her son at the school. The respondent wrote to the VTT, Ms. A, on 4th February, 2008 and requested her to make contact with the school in order to discuss this matter and Mr. B, School Principal, met with the VTT on 20th February, 2008 (at the request of the BOM) in relation to this issue. The respondent stated that the issue regarding the enrolment of Mrs. K's son was discussed regularly at Board of Management meetings and that it actively sought to achieve a resolution to the matter. The respondent submitted that the VTT should have contacted the School Principal directly in order to discuss the issue regarding the enrolment of Mrs. K's son, but instead of adopting an informal approach, she advised her to proceed with an appeal under section 29 of the Education Act, 1998.
3.4 The respondent stated that it was notified by the Department of Education & Science on 7th March, 2008 that Mrs. K had referred an appeal under section 29. The respondent stated that it had never dealt with a section 29 appeal prior to the present case and Mr. B stated that he sought to achieve a resolution to the matter. The respondent stated that it arranged for a teacher to call to Mrs. K's house on 2nd April, 2008 and she was informed that her son would be offered a place at the school on the condition that she withdrew the appeal under section 29. The respondent stated that it made arrangements to have Mrs. K's son enrolled in fifth class despite the fact that there was already thirty three students in each of the classes in that year. The respondent stated that it was necessary for Mrs. K's son to comply with the normal procedures such as the completion of an enrolment form, acquire a school uniform and books and provide a copy of his birth certificate before he could commence at the school. The respondent submitted that these basic requirements were applied to all students who wished to enrol at the school regardless of their nationality or whether they are from the Traveller or settled communities. The respondent stated that Mrs. K attended the school on 3rd April, 2008 and she was informed about the necessary requirements for enrolment. The respondent stated that Mrs. K attended the school with her son on two occasions after 3rd April, 2008 and sought to have her son attend class even-though he did not have a school uniform, the required books or a copy of his birth certificate.
3.5 The respondent accepts that, on one such occasion, Mrs. K sought a letter from the School Secretary, Ms. C, to state that her son was attending the school so that she could obtain financial assistance for the purchase of a school uniform from the Community Welfare Officer; however, it submitted that the School Secretary could not provide such a letter as Mrs. K's son was not attending the school at that juncture. The respondent stated that Mrs. K became verbally abusive towards Mr. B on this occasion and accused the school of being racist. The respondent stated that Mrs. K attended the school with her son a number of days later and on this occasion Mr. B requested that she apologise for her abusive behaviour on the previous occasion. The respondent stated that when Mr. B informed Mrs. K that the enrolment form had been incorrectly completed and that she would require a copy of his birth certificate she again became verbally abusive and called him "a dirty racist b......" . The respondent stated that it did not have any further contact with the complainant following this incident.
3.6 The respondent denies the allegation that it sought to put obstacles in the way of the complainants in terms of their attempt to have their son enrolled at the school. The respondent submitted that the reason why he ultimately was not enrolled was as a result of Mrs. K's failure to co-operate with the school and to comply with the standard requirements for enrolment that are applied to all students. The respondent also denies that it subjected Mrs. K to harassment or victimisation.
Conclusions of the Equality Officer
4.1 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, 2000 to 2008 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 he/she can rely in asserting that prohibited conduct has occurred in relation to him/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, both written and oral, made to me by the parties to the case.
4.2 The respondent is an educational institution which, inter alia, provides primary education to students and, as such, it is an educational institution within the meaning of Section 7(1) of the Acts and is therefore subject to Section 7(2) of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2008 which states that:
"7.- (2) An educational establishment shall not discriminate in relation to -
(a) the admission or the terms or conditions of admission of a person as a student to the establishment
(b) the access of a student to any course, facility or benefit provided by the establishment.
(c) any other term or condition of participation in the establishment by a student
(d) the expulsion of a student from the establishment or any other sanction against the student"
I will now proceed to examine the complaint on each of the grounds claimed i.e. the Traveller community, family status, race and victimisation grounds.
Traveller community ground
4.3 It was not in dispute between the parties that the complainants are members of the Traveller community. Mrs. K claims that her son was subjected to discrimination on the grounds of his membership of the Traveller community in terms of the manner in which the respondent dealt with his application for enrolment at its school. The question that I must decide in relation to this issue is whether Mrs. K's son was treated less favourably than another student would have been, in similar circumstances, on the grounds of his membership of the Traveller community in terms of the manner in which the respondent dealt with his application for enrolment at the school.
4.4 Firstly, I note that there was a conflict in the evidence of the parties as to when Mrs. K actually made the application for the enrolment of her son at the respondent's school. Mrs. K claims that she sought the enrolment of her son in early September, 2007 (by way of a telephone call to the school) and she claims that she was informed by the respondent at that juncture that there was no place available as the school was full. The respondent disputes that a formal application for enrolment was made by Mrs. K at that juncture. The respondent accepts that the School Secretary received a telephone enquiry from an unidentified person after the school year had commenced in September, 2007 regarding the possibility of enrolling a student in fifth class; however, it disputes that this contact constituted a formal application for enrolment and it claims that the first correspondence it received from Mrs. K regarding the enrolment of her son was an unsigned letter on 26th November, 2007. On balance, I have found the respondent's evidence regarding the circumstances surrounding the telephone call in September, 2007 to be more compelling and I accept that the first formal communication between the parties regarding the enrolment of Mrs. K's son was effected when the respondent received this letter on 26th November, 2007.
4.5 I note that the respondent's Enrolment Policy makes provision for the enrolment of pupils during the school year where it states: "Applications for enrolment during the school year will be considered subject to school policy, available space and the provision of information concerning the child's educational progress. Such applications will be considered on a case by case basis and will normally only be considered for admission on the first day of each new term unless the applicant is newly resident in the area". The respondent also disputes that the letter which it received from Mrs. K on 26th November, 2007 constituted a formal application for enrolment on behalf of her son on the basis that the letter had not been signed. However, I do not concur with the respondent's contention in this regard and I am satisfied that Mrs. K, in this letter, clearly conveyed the request that her son be considered for enrolment at the school. I accept that the letter did not contain Mrs. K's original signature; however, her name and address were clearly identified in typed format in this letter. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the respondent was formally notified by Mrs. K on 26th November, 2007 that she wished to have her son enrolled at the school.
4.6 I am of the view that it is important to consider the chronology of events that occurred after the respondent had received this letter in terms of my deliberations in relation to the issues to be decided in this case under the Equal Status Acts. It was accepted that there was an exchange of correspondence between the parties regarding the enrolment application during the period of time following the respondent's receipt of the letter on 26th November, 2007. There was also a meeting between the VTT and Mr. B on 20th February, 2008 during the course of which the issue of the enrolment application was discussed. It is clear from the evidence of both Mr. B and the VTT that no decision regarding the application for enrolment was reached arising from the discussions at this meeting. Mrs. K subsequently referred an appeal to the Department of Education & Science under section 29 of the Education Act, 1998 on the basis that she had not received a decision from the respondent in relation to her application for the enrolment of her son (the respondent was notified by the Department on 25th February, 2008 that the section 29 appeal had been referred). This appeal was scheduled to take place on 8th April, 2008; however, it was accepted that Mrs. K decided to withdraw the appeal after the respondent had contacted her on 2nd April, 2008 and offered to make a place available for her son at the school.
4.7 Having regard to the foregoing, it is clear that a period of time, in excess of four months, had elapsed from when Mrs. K made the initial application for enrolment (i.e. 26th November, 2007) of her son until the respondent informed her that there was a place available for him in the school (i.e. 2nd April, 2008). The question that I must decide in considering the alleged discrimination in the present case is whether or not the inordinate length of time that it took the respondent to make a decision in relation to the application for enrolment was attributable in any way to the complainants' membership of the Traveller community. In considering this issue, I have taken note of the provisions of section 19(3) of the Education (Welfare) Act, 2000 which provides that the Board of Management of a school is obliged to make a decision in relation to a request for enrolment within 21 days and inform the parent in writing thereof. The obligations that are placed upon a school by this legislation are clear and unambiguous in terms of the manner in which it is obliged to respond to applications for enrolment. Based on the facts in the present case, the respondent clearly failed to comply with its obligations under that legislation in terms of Mrs. K's application for the enrolment of her son at the school. The respondent submitted that it was trying to achieve a resolution to the matter during this four month period; however, I am satisfied that it has not put forward any plausible reason to explain why it took a period of four months to put such measures in place to achieve this resolution.
4.8 In this regard, I accept that there was a certain amount of interaction between the parties during this period (i.e. through correspondence and the meeting between Mr. B and the VTT) and that the matter had been discussed at various meetings by the respondent's Board of Management. It is clear from the evidence adduced that there wasn't a good working relationship between Mr. B and the VTT (who acted on behalf of the complainants in relation to the application for enrolment) and it would appear that this may have been contributory factor in terms of why Mrs. K's son was not offered a place at the school until 2nd April, 2008. I note that Mr. B stated in his direct evidence that he was dissatisfied with the manner in which the VTT had approached the issue and it is clear that he would have preferred both the VTT and Mrs. K to have pursued an informal route rather than having referred an appeal under section 29 of the Education Act, 1998. However, it should be borne in mind that the only reason the VTT was acting on behalf of Mrs. K in relation to the application for enrolment was because of the fact that she was member of the Traveller community.
4.9 Based on evidence adduced, the respondent has failed to provide any reason as to why it took a period of four months to make a decision in relation to Mrs. K's application for the enrolment of her son at the school or why it failed to comply with its statutory obligations under the Education (Welfare) Act, 2000 in this regard. In the circumstances, I can only conclude that the reason why the respondent failed to make a decision in relation to Mrs. K's application for the enrolment of her son for a period in excess of four months was attributable to his membership of the Traveller community. I do not accept that it would have taken the respondent such a period of time to make a decision on an application for enrolment, in similar circumstances, from a member of the settled community. Accordingly, I find that Mrs. K has succeeded in establishing a prima facie case of discrimination on the Traveller community ground in terms of her application for the enrolment of her son at the respondent's school. I also find that the respondent has failed to rebut the inference of discrimination in relation to this aspect of their complaint.
4.10 I must also consider Mrs. K's claim that both she and her son were subjected to discriminatory treatment on the grounds of their Traveller identity in terms of the manner in which they were treated after the respondent had indicated on 2nd April, 2008 that there would be a place available for her son at the school. Mrs. K claimed that the respondent attempted to put a number of obstacles in her way after it had agreed to offer her son a place at the school on 2nd April, 2008. The respondent denies that it attempted to put any obstacles in the way of Mrs. K's son and it claims that there were a number of standard requirements to which all students were obliged to adhere before he/she would be allowed to commence class at the school. The respondent claims that these requirements were clearly outlined to Mrs. K but that she failed to comply with them when she brought her son to the school.
4.11 In considering this issue, I note that Mrs. K was afforded an appointment to meet with Mr. B on 3rd April, 2008 in order to discuss the procedures for the enrolment of her son at the school. It was accepted by Mrs. K that she was informed by Mr. B at this meeting of the standard requirements that were necessary in order to complete the enrolment i.e. the school uniform, completion of the enrolment form, school books and birth certificate. It was not disputed between the parties that Mrs. K and her son presented at the school following this meeting and that he was not allowed to commence class because he did not meet the aforementioned requirements. However, based on the evidence adduced I do not accept that the reason he was not allowed to commence at that juncture was in any way attributable to his Traveller identity but rather it was because he clearly did not meet the requirements for enrolment that had been notified to Mrs. K during the course of her meeting with Mr. B.
4.12 In coming to this conclusion, I have taken into consideration that there were a number of inconsistencies in Mrs. K's evidence in terms of her interaction with the respondent after she had been informed of the standard requirements for the enrolment of her son. These inconsistencies include conflicting information in her written statement and oral evidence regarding the actual number of occasions that she presented at the school after she had been informed by the respondent that there would be a place available for her son at the school. There was also a conflict in the evidence between the parties regarding the incident that occurred on the occasion that Mrs. K attended the school in order to acquire a letter to submit to the Community Welfare Officer for the purpose of obtaining financial assistance to purchase a school uniform for her son. The respondent claims that Mrs. K became verbally abusive towards the School Secretary, Ms. C, and Mr. B (both of whom gave corroboratory evidence in relation to this incident at the oral hearing) on this occasion whereas Mrs. K denies that she engaged in any abusive behaviour on this occasion.
4.13 Having regard to the evidence adduced, I have found the respondent's evidence to be more credible regarding the events that occurred during the course of this meeting. I have also taken into consideration the undisputed evidence that Mrs. K called Mr. B "a racist b.....d" during the course of their final meeting at the school. Having regard to the foregoing, I do not accept Mrs. K's contention that the respondent attempted to obstruct her attempts to enrol her son in the school after it had agreed to offer him a place on 2nd April, 2008. I am satisfied that the reason why Mrs. K's son was unable to start school in the period following the meeting on 3rd April, 2008 was because of the fact that he did not meet the standard requirements to which all students were obliged to adhere to. Accordingly, I find that the complainants have failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the Traveller community ground in relation to this element of their complaint.
Family Status Ground
4.14 I am satisfied that Mrs. K has failed to adduce any evidence to support the claim that she was subjected to discrimination on the grounds of her family status in terms of the manner in which the respondent dealt with her application for the enrolment of her son. Accordingly, I find that Mrs. K has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the family status ground.
Race Ground
4.15 The complainants have also claimed that they were subjected to discrimination on the grounds of their race in terms of the manner in which the application for enrolment was dealt with by the respondent. It was submitted that the complainants, as members of the Traveller community, are members of an ethnic minority which resides within the State and accordingly, they are covered by the definition of race within the Equal Status Acts. I am satisfied that the complainants have failed to adduce any evidence to support the claim that they are covered by the race ground within the meaning of the Equal Status Acts. Accordingly, I find that the complainants have failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the race ground.
Harassment
4.16 I am satisfied that the complainant, Mrs. K, has failed to establish any facts from which it could be inferred that she was subjected to harassment within the meaning of section 11 of the Equal Status Acts in terms of her application for the enrolment of her son at the respondent's school. Accordingly, I find that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of harassment contrary to the Equal Status Acts.
Victimisation
4.17 I am satisfied that the complainant, Mrs. K, has failed to establish any facts from which it could be inferred that she was subjected to victimisation within the meaning of section 3(2)(j) of the Equal Status Acts in terms of her application for the enrolment of her son at the respondent's school. Accordingly, I find that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of victimisation contrary to the Equal Status Acts.
Decision
5.1 In accordance with Section 25(4) of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2008, I conclude this investigation and issue the following decision. I find that the complainants have failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on family status, race and victimisation grounds in terms of sections 3(2)(c), 3(2)(h), 3(2)(j) and contrary to section 7(2) of the Equal Status Acts. I also find that the complainants have failed to establish a prima facie case of harassment contrary to section 11 of the Equal Status Acts.
5.2 I also find that the respondent has discriminated against the complainants on the Traveller community ground in terms of section 3(2)(i) and contrary to section 7(2) of the Equal Status Acts in terms of the manner in which it dealt with their application for enrolment i.e. between the date that the formal application was made until it agreed on 2nd April, 2008 to make a place available for him at the school. Accordingly, I find in favour of the complainants in relation to this element of their complaint.
5.3 Under Section 27(2) of the Equal Status Acts the maximum amount of compensation I can award is €6,349. In considering the amount of compensation that I should award in this case, I have taken into consideration the respondent's evidence that it has, heretofore, had a good track record in providing education to members of the Traveller community. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, I have also taken into account the fact that Mrs. K's son missed out on a year of his education as a result of the respondent's failure to deal with his application for enrolment in an appropriate manner during the school year 2007/08. In accordance with section 27(1)(a) of the Acts, I award the complainants the sum of €3,500 in totality as redress for the effects of the discrimination.
5.4 I also order, in accordance with Section 27(1)(b) of the Acts, that the respondent put in place a system that will facilitate the timely compliance with its statutory obligations under the Education (Welfare) Act, 2000 in terms of the manner in which it deals with applications for enrolment of pupils at the school.
Enda Murphy
Equality Officer
18th January, 2011