The Equality Tribunal
3 Clonmel Street
Dublin 2.
Phone: 353 -1- 4774100
Fax: 353-1- 4774141
E-mail: info@equalitytribunal.ie
Website: www.equalitytribunal.ie
Employment Equality Acts
1998-2008
EQUALITY OFFICER'S DECISION
NO: DEC-E2011-145
PARTIES
Sefidvash
- V -
Institute of Art and Design
File references: EE/2008/179
Date of issue: 20 July 2011
Keywords
Employment Equality Acts 1998-2008- Discriminatory Treatment - Age - Race - Religion - Prima facie case
1. Dispute
1.1. This dispute concerns a claim by Mr. Siavash Sefidvash (hereafter "the complainant") that he was subjected to discriminatory treatment contrary to the Employment Equality Acts by the Institute of Art, Design and Technology (hereafter "the respondent") on the ground of his age, race and religion. The complainant maintains that the respondent discriminated against him by refusing to award him a grade sufficient to be awarded his degree and by further refusing to backdate his degree, if he later succeeded in passing the repeat assessments. He also claims that the respondent colluded with the previous 3rd level institute which he attended, that they colluded with the complainant's employer and that they colluded with a tenant of the complainant's father, all with the effect of causing detriment to the complainant. The complainant also claimed that the quality assurance standards of the respondent were ineffective and the respondent over-used disciplinary proceedings. The respondent denies all of these allegations and claims that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case on any of the grounds listed under either the Employment Equality Acts or the Equal Status Acts.
1.2. The complainant referred his claims of discrimination to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 28 March 2008 under the Employment Equality Acts These claims were made on the race, religion and age grounds. On 29 March 2011, in accordance with his powers under section 75 of the Employment Equality Acts, the Director then delegated this case to Elaine Cassidy- 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 which date my investigation commenced. As required by Section 79(1) of the Acts and as part of my investigation, I scheduled a hearing for 10.30am 19 July 2011.
2. Case for the complainant
2.1. Both parties were advised of the date of the hearing by registered post on 10 June 2011. An Post confirmed that the complainant received the letter on 17 June 2011. On the day before the hearing, the Tribunal Secretariat left a phone message for the complainant to confirm details of the size of his party and whether any special facilities were required. The complainant left a phone message for the Tribunal Secretariat later that day saying that he was surprised the hearing was going ahead and that he felt unprepared. On the morning of the hearing, July 19th, the complainant forwarded an email to the Tribunal Secretariat. This email had originally been sent on June 29th to a different Equality Officer, referencing a different case, to which the complainant was also a party. On that occasion the Equality Officer in question responded to the complainant regarding the complaint in question.
The complainant stated in his covering email of 19th July, that his previous message (of June 29th) had been intended as an adjournment request for the hearing of this case. However due to his mixing up the cases, I did not receive his adjournment request until the morning of the hearing itself. In the circumstances, I cannot accept an adjournment request at such short notice and without a substantial reason. I further note that the complainant had been fully aware since June 17th of the hearing on July 19th and that he had never received any communication, either verbally or in writing, to indicate that the matter had been adjourned.
3. Decision
3.1. In the light of the foregoing, and in accordance with Section 79(6) of the Acts, I issue the following decision. I find that the complainant's failure to attend a hearing was unreasonable in the circumstances of this case and that any obligation under Section 79 of the Acts has ceased. I conclude the investigation and find against the complainant.
______________
Elaine Cassidy
Equality Officer
20 July 2011