EDA127

Basis of the Claims

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent on a community employment scheme as a youth worker. The primary purpose of the scheme was to assist the Complainant in developing a career opportunity. The scheme is designed to accommodate participants for 12 months although there is the possibility of participation being renewed for a further year.

The Complainant suffers from a disability which impairs his capacity to read and write. He commenced employment with the Respondent in June 2007. In or about April 2008 he was asked to write a report on certain activity in which he had been engaged. He contends that he informed his manager that he could not write a report without assistance because of his disability. He says that he was shouted at for not producing a report. He further complained that his employment was not renewed at the expiry of his initial term. The Complainant attributes this to his failure to produce the report.

The Complainant says that he informed the Respondent of his disability at the time of his employment.

In relation to his claim of discrimination on marital status grounds the essence of the Complainant’s case is that he was paid by cheque on a number of occasions and that due to his child care responsibilities, as a separated parent, he was unable to go to a bank to cash the cheque.

The Respondent says that it was never made aware that the Complainant suffered from a disability until April 2008, some nine months after he commenced employment. The Respondent says that the Complainant was asked to write a one page report setting out details of what had occurred with a particular project with which he was involved. The Respondent denies shouting at the Complainant in relation to this matter or refusing his assistance in writing the report. According to the Respondent the report was not produced and the Respondent took no action in relation to the matter.

It further submits that the Complainant’s employment came to an end on the expiry of the term for which he was assigned to the scheme and not by dismissal. The Complainant’s participation was not renewed because the Respondent did not believe that the Complainant could benefit by further participation.

With regard to the payments by cheque, the Court was told that the normal mode of payment was electronic transfer to the participant’s bank account. On two occasions there were problems with the Respondent’s computer system and all wages had to be paid by cheque. There was one other on which the Complainant was paid by cheque because he had been absent during the week in question and adjustments to his pay had to be made. It was pointed out that the Complainant did not work on Fridays and had ample opportunities to go to the bank.

Conclusion
Having considered all of the evidence in the case the Court cannot see any basis for the Complainant’s complaints. There is no evidence of the Complainant having suffered any detriment for not having produced a report nor is there any evidence to support his claim of having been verbally abused on that account.

The Court is satisfied that the Complainant was not dismissed. His employment ended when the term for which he was engaged expired within the terms on which he had been engaged. No causal connection has been established between the non-renewal of his participation in the scheme and his disability.

With regard to his complaint of discrimination on the marital status ground, the Court cannot see how the decision to pay the Complainant by cheque on three occasions could be regarded as indirect discrimination against a separated person with children. In the Court’s view that aspect of the claim is simply unstateable.

Determination

There is no basis upon which the Complainant’s appeal could succeed. Accordingly the decision of the Equality Tribunal is affirmed in its totality and the appeal is disallowed.