THE EQUALITY TRIBUNAL
EQUAL STATUS ACTS 2000-2008
Decision DEC-S2011-019
PARTIES
Rose Ward, Michael Ward, Bernard McDonagh,
Kathleen McDonagh Junior and Kathleen McDonagh Senior
(Represented by Andrew d'Arcy & Co. Solicitors)
and
Cappagrennan Limited
(Represented by Ms. Ciara Walsh B.L.
on the instructions of William F. Semple & Co. Solicitors )
File Reference: ES/2009/125-129
Date of Issue: 10th May, 2011
Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2008
Equality Officer Decision
DEC-S2011-019
Rose Ward, Michael Ward, Bernard McDonagh,
Kathleen McDonagh Junior and Kathleen McDonagh Senior
(Represented by Andrew d'Arcy & Co. Solicitors)
and
Cappagrennan Limited
(Represented by Ms. Ciara Walsh B.L.
on the instructions of William F. Semple & Co. Solicitors )
Key Words
Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2008 - Direct discrimination, Section 3(1) - less favourable treatment, Traveller community Ground - Section 3(2)(i), no prima facie case, failure to attend - finding not in favour of complainant
Delegation under Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2008
The complainants referred complaints to the Director of the Equality Tribunal under the Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2008 on the 11th December, 2009. On the 11th February, 2011 in accordance with his powers under section 75 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 to 2008 and under the Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2008 the Director delegated the case 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 Act, 2000 on which date my investigation commenced. As required by Section 25(1) and as part of my investigation, I proceeded to hearing on the on the 10th May, 2011.
1. Dispute
1.1 The dispute concerns a complaint by the above mentioned complainants that they were discriminated against by the above mentioned respondent on the Traveller community ground contrary to Section 5 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2008.
2. Summary of the Case
2.1 The complainants referred complaints to the Equality Tribunal on the 11th December, 2009. As part of my investigation of these complaints, I notified the parties on 11th March, 2011 that a hearing would take place on the 10th May, 2011. The parties were informed in this letter that an adjournment of the hearing would only be granted in exceptional circumstances. On the 9th May, 2011 at approx. 4:20 p.m., I received a faxed letter from the complainants' representative requesting an adjournment of the hearing as scheduled because the complainants were "unable to attend tomorrow for a variety of reasons to include; - being outside of the jurisdiction".
2.2 The complainants' representative was informed by a faxed letter (from the Tribunal) at 4:41 p.m. on 9th May, 2011 that the Director of the Tribunal had refused to grant the request for an adjournment on the basis that the circumstances surrounding the request were not deemed to be exceptional. It was pointed out to the complainants' representative in this faxed letter that in considering the request for an adjournment, it had been taken into consideration that the Tribunal had afforded the complainants approx. eight weeks advance notice of the hearing date and that the request for an adjournment had only been made on the day prior to the hearing. It was confirmed to the complainant's representative that the hearing would take place as scheduled on 10th May, 2011 (the Tribunal received electronic confirmation that this faxed letter was successfully transmitted to the complainants' representative). The complainants and their legal representative failed to attend the hearing on the 10th May, 2011. The respondent together with witnesses and legal representation attended.
3. Conclusions of the Equality Officer
3.1 I am satisfied from the correspondence with the complainants' representative that they were properly notified that a hearing in their cases was taking place as scheduled on 10th May, 2011. As no adjournment was granted (in response to the request that was received on 9th May, 2011), I find that the complainants failure to attend the hearing was unreasonable in the circumstances.
4. Decision
4.1 In accordance with Section 25(4) of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2008, I issue the following decision. As part of my investigation under Section 25 of the Act, I am obliged to hear all interested persons, I find that the complainants' failure to attend such a hearing was unreasonable in the circumstances and that any obligation under Section 25(1) has ceased. As no evidence was presented in support of their allegations of discrimination at the hearing, I conclude the investigation and I find against the complainants.
_________________
Enda Murphy
Equality Officer
10th May, 2011