DEC-S2013-010

THE EQUALITY TRIBUNAL

EQUAL STATUS ACTS 2000-2012

Decision No. DEC-S2013-010

Mr A

-v-

Community Welfare Service, Department of Social Protection

File Reference: ES/2011/0050
Date of Issue: 11th October 2013

Key words: Equal Status Acts, Civil Status, Family Status, Gender, Rent Supplement, Community Welfare Service, Non-marital father, Indirect discrimination, Objective justification, Department of Social Protection, Fathers' rights

1. Delegation under the relevant legislation

1.1 This case concerns a complaint by Mr A that he was discriminated against by the Community Welfare Service on the combined grounds of gender, civil status (formerly marital status) and family status. The case was initially taken against HSE South but the Department of Social Protection has taken over the Community Welfare Service and therefore acknowledges it is the correct respondent. On 23rd March 2011, the complainant referred a claim to the Director of the Equality Tribunal under the Equal Status Acts 2000 -2012 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Acts']. On 10th September 2012, in accordance with his powers under section 75 of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 -2012 and under 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 III of the Acts. My investigation commenced on this date.

1.2 As required by Section 25(1) and as part of my investigation, I proceeded to hearing on 3rd October 2012. Correspondence continued until 18th December 2012.

2 Summary of the Complainant's Case

2.1 Mr A is the father of two young daughters. His relationship with the mother of his two children broke down shortly after his second daughter was born. They were never married. All were living in the United Kingdom at the time. However, he maintained an amicable relationship with his ex-partner and they shared care of their daughters i.e. his children regularly used to stay overnight in his home both during the week and weekends. It was not necessary for him to seek a formal (i.e. court-imposed) arrangement, as his partner was content to allow him plenty of access. In 2006, his ex-partner moved back to Ireland with their children. He submits he missed his children very much so he gave up his job in the UK in March 2007 to move to Ireland. He submits that his ex-partner was happy about this as his children missed him also. Mr A maintains that, for the first time in his adult life, he could not secure work so he signed on for Jobseekers Assistance. He also was entitled to Rent Supplement (colloquially known as rent allowance) which is a payment to Social Welfare recipients living in private rented accommodation who cannot provide for the cost of their accommodation entirely from their own resources.

2.2 He was anxious to find accommodation quickly where his two daughters could stay overnight. In his haste to find somewhere, he secured a house where the rent was only €100 per week. At the time (rent supplement was subsequently reduced) the single person's rent supplement covered the cost of rent. However, he submits that the reason that the rent on this two-bedroomed house was so low is that it had no form of heating other than an open fire. When his daughters stayed over in the winter, he brought their mattresses downstairs so they could sleep in the sitting room which was the only room that was warm.

2.3 He submits that this accommodation was unsuitable. He was keen to move elsewhere before the cold weather set in again as his children had previously got chest infections while staying with him. Mr A states that his ex-partner had mental health difficulties for many years; she battled with depression and alcoholism. He is anxious to point out that when she was well, she was a great mother and loved her children very much and they her. However, around this time his ex-partner was having more bad episodes and, as a result, his daughters were staying with him more frequently. He maintains that a one-roomed bedsit would be all he would be able to obtain for the single person rent supplement in the area where he lived. He submits that this would be unsuitable accommodation for his daughters staying over.

2.4 In October 2009 he found a warm, 3-bedroomed house for €160 per week. The rent supplement cap for a single person with two children was €171 at the time. He applied for this rent supplement. As he could easily prove that his children were with him a lot of the time he assumed he would qualify for this rate. However on 13th October 2009 he received a letter from the Community Welfare Department, HSE South (as it then was):

Your application for assistance with the cost of rent at the above address has been disallowed as you are deemed to be over-accommodated here. I note from your file that you state that you wish to have this accommodation on the basis that your children visit with you, however your children's accommodation needs are already being adequately catered for. You have the right to appeal this decision.

2.5 On receiving the letter he met with the Community Welfare Officer (CWO) for his area. He submits that she said that if he got a Court Order to substantiate that his children regularly stayed with him overnight that he should get the one-parent family with two children rent supplement. He pointed out that he was on the waiting list for free legal aid to acquire guardianship and custody rights. Mr A submits that this is not because the mother of his children was contesting this but because of her deteriorating mental health, he was anxious to get a formal arrangement. Because of the urgency of the situation (he was now living in this house) he decided waive his entitlement to free legal aid and seek an urgent court appointment. He and his ex-partner attended the District Court on 10th November 2009 without the benefit of legal advice. Mr A was granted guardianship and access most weekends and one evening per week. He submits that the District Court hearing was very short but one of the questions that he remembers being asked is whether he had suitable accommodation for his children. He replied that he had as he assumed getting the extra rent allowance would be automatic once he obtained guardianship and formal access to his children. Mr A submits that had he said that he did not have suitable accommodation that he may not have been granted access. However the following day, a Deputy Appeals officer upheld the CWO's decision on the basis that his ex-partner received rent allowance for herself and the children. He submits that he was then told that he needed 60% joint custody (as opposed to access) to benefit from the one-parent family rent cap. He said that had he known that was the case, he would have asked the Judge to give him this as that reflected the reality of his parenting situation. He then appealed it to the Chief Appeals Officer.

2.6 In his appeal Mr A enclosed a letter from the children's HSE Social Worker:

As a Community Care Social worker I have known [ex-partner] and Mr A since December 2008. I can confirm that at present Mr. A would have access to his daughters on average of three full weekends per month and every second Wednesday for some hours in the evening.
If you need any more information please do not hesitate to contact me.

Mr A also submitted documentary evidence to show his ex-partner was regularly required to stay in a psychiatric ward (on one occasion for a seven week stint) and his children were in his full-time care at that time. He included the name of his ex-partner's psychiatric consultant (also a HSE employee) should they wish to check the veracity of his ex-partner's condition. He also pointed out that as per the rent allowance regulations he had applied for local authority housing. He was approved for family accommodation with his local authority. He points out that two different arms of the state have different policies. His local authority encourages separated parents with access to their children to be accommodated appropriately while the Community Welfare Service does not. He submits that his ex-partner left social housing for a private residence and yet she received rent supplement although this is a breach of regulations. He submits that the Community Welfare Service applied the Regulations differently to her than to him. He submits that he considered applying for full custody but his children were very attached to their mother and he did not want to jeopardise that.

2.7 His owner of the house where he was living also assumed that he would win his appeal so was prepared wait for the arrears. He had fully lost his entitlement to Rent Supplement i.e. he did not get the Single Person's Rent Supplement either. This meant his rent had to come out of Jobseekers Assistance payment of €197.80. However, he lost his appeal with the Chief Appeals Officer on 7th May 2010. He submits his landlady saw that his children were with him most of the time and felt sorry for him. Therefore she agreed to temporarily reduce the rent to €100 per week on 25th June 2010 so that he became entitled again to Single Person rent supplement. He describes her as his hero for allowing this rent reduction when she could have evicted him for rent arrears. This is because it meant his children were with him in a proper home when their mother (unexpectedly) died by suicide in April 2011.

2.8 He is anxious to point out that he now receives the full rent supplement for a one-parent family with two children now as his children live with him full-time. His rent has gone up to the market rate accordingly. However he still has significant rent arrears from when he was in receipt of no rent supplement in October 2009 to when his landlady took pity on him in June 2010 and temporarily reduced the rent.

Summary of the Respondent's Case

3.1 The respondent denies that it discriminated against the complainant either on the grounds of gender or family status i.e. as a father who is no longer with the mother of his children. They submit that he was not treated less favourably than anybody else with the same family circumstances was. They submit that his circumstances were very different to that of his ex-partner. She was the primary carer of their children and as such was in receipt of children's allowance for them and One Parent Family Allowance for them

3.2 The respondent submits that purpose of the rent supplement scheme is to provide short-term support to eligible people living in private rented accommodation whose means are insufficient to meet their accommodation costs and who do not have accommodation available to them from an other source. It is not to act as an alternative to the other social housing schemes operated by the Exchequer. In 2012, there were approximately 95,000 people in receipt of rent supplement at a cost to the Exchequer of €436 million. Rent supplement is based on market rates - in 2013, it was increased in Dublin and its hinterland.¹ The relevant statutory basis for the rent supplement scheme is contained in Section 9 of S.I. 412 of 2007 Social Welfare (Consolidated Supplementary Welfare Allowance) Regulations 2007:

Entitlement to rent supplement.
9. (1) Subject to these Regulations, a person shall be entitled to a supplement
towards the amount of rent payable by him or her in respect of his or her
residence.
(2) It shall be a condition of any claimant's entitlement to a supplement under
sub-article (1) that --
(a) he or she is a bona fide tenant,
(b) at the time of application for a supplement under sub-article (1), the
Executive is satisfied that the claimant --
(i) (I) could reasonably have afforded the rent at the commencement
of the tenancy,
(II) in so far as was reasonable in all the circumstances, had at the
commencement of the tenancy, an expectation that he or she
would be able to afford the rent into the future, and
(III) has experienced a substantial change in his or her circumstances
leading to an inability to afford the rent, such change
in circumstances not having occurred by any design on the
part of the claimant,
or
(ii) (I) is regarded by a housing authority as being homeless in
accordance with section 2 of the Housing Act 1988 (No. 28
of 1988),
(II) is assessed by a housing authority as having a housing need,
(III) is a tenant of a body approved by the Minister for the Environment,
Heritage and Local Government for the purposes of
section 6 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1992
(No. 18 of 1992),
(IV) is aged 65 years or over,
(V) is in receipt of a disability allowance, invalidity pension or
blind pension from the Department of Social and Family
Affairs or an equivalent payment from another Member
State or a country with which Ireland has a reciprocal social
security agreement under section 287, or
(VI) is subject to any other circumstance in respect of which, in the
opinion of the Executive, the provisions of article 38 apply,
10 [412]
(c) he or she has made application, on being so required by the Executive,
to a housing authority to be assessed for a housing need under section
9 of the Housing Act 1988,
(d) his or her name has not been excluded from an assessment made by
a housing authority pursuant to section 9 of the Housing Act 1988 by
reason of his or her failure to accept an offer of accommodation or if
his or her name has been so excluded, the Executive is satisfied that
there was valid reason for his or her failure to accept such offer,
(e) he or she has not vacated accommodation provided by a housing authority
or if he or she has vacated such accommodation the Executive
is satisfied that he or she had good cause for so doing,
(f) the claimant has not refused for a third time, within any continuous 18
month period commencing on or after 31 January 2004, an offer of
accommodation provided by either a housing authority or a body
approved by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local
Government for the purposes of section 6 of the Housing
(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1992 (including accommodation provided
under the scheme known as the Rental Accommodation
Scheme) and, where such refusal has occurred, a supplement under
sub-article (1) shall not be payable for a period of 12 months from
the date of the refusal,
(g) he or she is not in receipt of, or entitled to, an allowance in accordance
with regulations made under section 23 of the Housing (Private
Rented Dwellings) Act 1982 (No. 6 of 1982),
(h) the person beneficially entitled to the rent payable under the tenancy
is not --
(i) a housing authority,
(ii) the Executive,
(iii) a body which provides services on behalf of, or similar or ancillary
to, the Executive using residential care staff and which receives a
subvention from the Minister for Health and Children in respect
of the claimant, or
(iv) a voluntary housing body which receives a subsidy under the
scheme, known as the "rental subsidy scheme", administered by
housing authorities under section 7 of the Housing
(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1992,
(i) the Executive is satisfied that --
(i) the claimant is in need of accommodation and is unable to provide
for it from his or her own resources,
[412] 11
(ii) the residence is reasonably suited to the residential and other
needs of the claimant, and
(iii) the rent payable by the claimant is just and proper having regard
to the nature, character and location of the residence,
and for this purpose, the appropriate maximum amount of rent in
respect of which a supplement is payable for the period commencing
on 26 January 2007 and ending on 30 June 2008, shall be --
(I) (A) the monthly amount set out in columns (6), (7) and (8)
of Schedule 1 to these Regulations opposite that reference
in respect of each of the counties Dublin, Wicklow
and Kildare, or
(B) in all other cases the weekly amount, set out in Schedule
1 to these Regulations in respect of such class or classes
of persons referred to in row (1) of the said Schedule, and
(II) the amount as determined by the Minister in respect of any
other class or classes of persons,
having regard to the family circumstances and the location of the
residence of such persons, and
(j) where the person beneficially entitled to the rent payable under the
tenancy is an approved body in receipt of assistance under the scheme
of capital assistance for the provision of housing accommodation
operated under section 6 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions)
Act 1992 and section 15 of the Housing Act 1988, the Executive
receives confirmation from the relevant housing authority that the
rent has been fixed in accordance with the terms of the scheme.
(3) A rent supplement shall not be payable where the amount of rent exceeds
the appropriate maximum amount of rent as determined under paragraph (i) of
sub-article (2).

3.3 Generally the policy adopted by the Community Welfare Service is that where the parents of children do not reside together is that if the children have adequate accommodation with one parent and that parent is in receipt of the relevant social welfare payment for them then that is the parent entitled to rent allowance at the family rate. The other parent is then treated as having a single person's housing requirement. That is why Mr A did not qualify. The respondent submits that in exceptional circumstances there is variance from this policy. However, it did not view Mr A as an exceptional case and this was upheld at two appeals as well as by the Ombudsman.

3.4 The respondent maintains that at no time did the Community Welfare Service prevent Mr A from moving to alternative accommodation nor did it force him to live in a bedsit (as he suggests) as long as it did not go over the single person rent limit. They also point out that he was entitled to the Single Person Supplement as opposed to the Single Person in Shared Accommodation.

Conclusions of the Equality Officer

4.1 Section 38(A) of the Equal Status Acts 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. In deciding on this complaint, therefore, I must first consider whether the existence of a prima facie case has been established by the complainant. 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 in this case, I have taken cognisance of all the oral and written submissions made by the parties.

4.2 Section 5 (1) of the Equal Status Acts 2000 - 2011:

A person shall not discriminate in disposing of goods to the public generally, or a section of the public or in providing a service, whether the disposal or provision is for consideration or otherwise, and whether the service provided can be availed of only by a section of the public.

The Community Welfare Service (formerly under the aegis of the HSE and now under the Department of Social Protection) clearly is providing a service to the public.

4.3 Section 3 (1)(a) provides that for the purposes of the Equal Status Acts, discrimination shall be taken to occur where:

On any of the grounds referred to in sub-section (2) in this act refer to as ("the discriminatory grounds") which exists at present, or previously existed but no longer exists, or may exist in the future, or which is imputed to the person concerned, a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated.

4.4 The issue for me to decide is whether the complainant discriminated against on the grounds of gender, civil status and family status. The complainant has claimed both direct and indirect discrimination.

Direct Discrimination

4.5 The complainant has named the mother of his children as his comparator. Although they share the same civil status and family status, they are of different genders. His ex-partner benefited from the more generous One Parent Family with Two Children Rent Supplement while he was only entitled to the Single Person Rent Supplement although he was also a parent. He submits and the respondent concede that his ex-partner gave up local authority housing for private rented accommodation and was still allowed benefit from the more generous cap which is arguably in breach of Section 10 (e) of the Regulations

'e) he or she has not vacated accommodation provided by a housing authority
or if he or she has vacated such accommodation the Executive
is satisfied that he or she had good cause for so doing,'

Even though there were times when her children were absent from her home (i.e. when Mr A had access to them) she benefited from the more favourable rent supplement while he did not. For these reasons, Mr A has established a prima facie case of discrimination as a man with parenting responsibilities compared to a woman with parenting responsibilities. Section 14 of the Acts allows exceptions from unlawful discrimination:

14. Nothing in this act shall be construed as prohibiting -
(a) the taking of any action that is required by, or under -
(i). any enactment or order of a court,
(ii). any act on, or measure adopted by the European Union, by the European Communities or institutions thereof or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the European Communities, or
(iii). any convention or other instrument imposing an international obligation under the State

This means that if existing legislation provides that an action be carried out in a certain way it cannot be deemed to be an unlawful action under the Acts. The definition of enactment in Section 2 (1) of the Interpretation Act 2005 clearly includes Statutory Instruments such as S.I. 412 of 2007 Social Welfare (Consolidated Supplementary Welfare Allowance) Regulations 2007:

"Enactment" means an Act or a Statutory Instrument or any portion of an Act or Statutory Instrument.

4.6 However, possibly because rent supplement can be the difference between somebody being left destitute or not, S.I. 412 of 2007 allows considerable discretion to the Executive e.g. 'having regard to the family circumstances and the location of the residence of such persons' and Section 9 (2) (i) 'the residence is reasonably suited to the residential and other needs of the claimant' [my emphasis]. I would interpret this to include a person's needs as a father. There is a strong judicial tendency in Irish courts in favour of granting fathers (marital and non-marital) access to their children. In MacB. V A.G. Barron J., stated that it was 'essential that the children know that they have a father and ...that their father is able to take the place of a father in their lives'.² Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms states that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. In Zaunegger v Germany the European Court of Human Rights found Germany to be in breach of Article 8 of the Convention when a non-martial father who was denied a Judicial Review of a statutory provision making joint custody dependent on the birth mother's approval:

37. In this context the Court reiterates that the notion of family under this provision is not confined to marriage-based relationships and may encompass other de facto "family" ties where the parties are living together out of wedlock. A child born out of such a relationship is ipso jure part of that "family" unit from the moment and by the very fact of his birth. Thus there exists between the child and its parents a bond amounting to family life (see Keegan v. Ireland, judgment of 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290, § 44). The existence or non-existence of "family life" within the meaning of Article 8 is essentially a question of fact depending upon the real existence in practice of close personal ties, in particular the demonstrable interest in and commitment by the father to the child both before and after the birth (see, among other authorities, L. v. the Netherlands, no. 45582/99, § 36, ECHR 2004-IV).

38. The Court further notes that the mutual enjoyment by a parent and child of each other's company constitutes a fundamental element of family life, even if the relationship between the parents has broken down, and domestic measures which hinder such enjoyment amount to an interference with the right protected by Article 8³[my emphasis]

4.7 I accept the complainant's contention that a one-bedroomed bedsit is unsuitable for his (and his children's) needs when he had regular overnight access with his two daughters. There was some discussion at the hearing and in correspondence afterwards as to whether he would be able to find more appropriate accommodation than a bedsit within the single person rent supplement cap. On request from myself, the complainant provided two statements from estate agents in the area for the average cost of renting various properties in his area in 2009. Mr A was anxious to point out that he would have been content with a 2-bedroom property (as his two daughters could share a room) so long it is was warm but there is a dearth of two bedroomed properties in his area. If he was just seeking accommodation for himself or if his daughters only stayed very occasionally, a 1 bedroomed unit would be sufficient.

The respondent points out that over 1500 people in the county where he lived were in receipt of rent allowance in 2009 i.e. they were able to obtain or retain tenancies within the rent supplement caps. Following the hearing, they gave examples of four 2 bedroom apartments where the rent was €400 per month and one a 2 bedroomed house where the rent was reduced to €100 per week to keep the tenant. They gave one example of where somebody was sharing a 3 bedroom house (i.e. renting a room) where the rent was €300 per month. They also gave an example of a 3 bedroomed property in the town that was rented for €70 per week. This appears to be an outlier. In 2009 the rent cap was €94 per week for a single person and €171 for a one-parent family with two children.⁴ I am satisfied that the complainant is correct in saying it was nearly impossible in 2009 to rent a well-appointed 2-bedroom property within the single person rent cap in the area he was living. I am also satisfied that the Community Welfare Officer was aware of the rental trends in the area also.

4.8 Therefore, as admitted by the respondent, S.I. 412 of 2007 allows for some discretion for exceptional circumstances for the deciding officer. I am surprised that at neither the initial stage (Community Welfare Officer) nor the two appeals nor the Ombudsman's investigation, Mr A's circumstances were not deemed to be exceptional. He submitted a court access order, letter from the children's social worker, and documentary evidence of his ex-partner's psychiatric ill-health and still neither the Deciding Officer nor the Appeals Officers was prepared to use their discretion. I cannot help wondering what would be deemed an exceptional circumstance if this was not.

4.9 Therefore, I find that Mr A has established a prima facie case of direct discrimination on the grounds of gender combined with family and civil status i.e. as an unmarried father and the respondent was unable to rebut it.

Indirect discrimination
4.10 As Mr A has also claimed indirect discrimination, I will also examine that. Section 3(1)(c) defines indirect discrimination as 'where an apparently neutral provision puts a person referred to in any paragraph of section 3(2) at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons, unless the provision is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.' The definition of provision in Section 2 is broad: 'a term in a contract or a requirement, criterion, practice, regime, policy or condition affecting a person.'

4.11 Mr A claims that the policy of only allowing a parent with joint or greater custody to receive the benefit of a family rent supplement indirectly discriminates against him as a non-marital father with access rather than custody of his children. The respondent readily admits that their practice (although it is not written down anywhere) is not to grant family rent supplement to parents who do not have joint or full custody of their children except in exceptional circumstances. The respondent states that this applies to mothers as well as fathers. Neither the complainant nor the respondent could give an example of where an exception was made for either a mother or a father.

4.12 The complainant could not provide statistical evidence that full custody is usually granted to mothers and access to fathers as family courts are held in camera. However, in his book Child Law, Geoffrey Shannon, one of the most eminent experts on the subject in Ireland, states that 'Joint custody tends, however, to be the exception rather than the rule. Most custody agreements and access orders require that children reside mainly with only one parent with access to the second'.⁵ The reason given for this is 'judges consider it best that children spend their school nights in the same bed, and are disinclined, for example, to require them to spend an equal number of nights with each parent during the school week'.⁶ Therefore, I accept that the complainant is at a particular disadvantage (as a father who no longer resides with the mother of his children) compared to a mother who no longer resides with the father of her children as in the majority of cases, the mother is granted full custody and the father is granted access to his children. As a consequence mothers generally gain entitlement to the family rent supplement while the father does not.

4.13 Now I will turn to the three limbs of objective justification:

(i) whether it's a legitimate aim
(ii) whether the means of achieving that aim is appropriate
(iii) whether the means of achieving that aim is necessary

The respondent submits that the aim of this practice is to prevent over-accommodation. This is a legitimate aim. In common with most taxpayers, I would not wish to see separated fathers living in large houses in situations where children rarely stay over and the Exchequer is picking up the bill. However, I am not satisfied that the means chosen to achieve the aim is appropriate in every circumstance. What appears to be 'Just Say No' policy ignores the reality that mothers generally get full custody of children. I have said elsewhere in the decision that in situations where fathers have regular overnight access to their children, a bedsit is not appropriate accommodation for either the father or the children. Furthermore, I would like to note again that in this particular case, had the children (aged 8 and 9) not stayed with their father at the time in question, they might have been witnesses to their mother's suicide.

4.14 Neither do I think the means chosen to achieve the aim of preventing over-accommodation and its resultant cost to the Exchequer to be necessary. S.I. 412 of 2007 allows discretion so it is not necessary to give parents with access to, rather than custody of, their children only the single rent supplement in all circumstances. It is possible to look at applicants for rent supplement on a case-by-case basis. A Community Welfare Officer is one of the most difficult roles in the public service. They are dealing with the hard edge of poverty on a daily basis and I imagine have heard almost every hard-luck story. They have a duty to protect the Exchequer from fraud but they are also obliged to conduct their business in a non-discriminatory way. I am sure appropriate checks and balance can be put in place to ensure fathers entitled to rent supplement can enjoy family life with their children that do not permanently reside with them without putting an unnecessary burden on the State's finances. Therefore, I have found that preventing over-accomodation is a legitimate aim but the means chosen to achieve are neither appropriate nor necessary in every circumstance. Therefore, the respondent has failed to provide objective justification for this indirect discrimination.

4.15 In considering redress, I am cognisant that Mr A owes more in rent arrears that the maximum redress that I am allowed to award under Section 27 (2) of the Acts, which is €6,349. While I am constrained by the legislation, I am mindful that the prohibited conduct occurred during a personally difficult time for Mr A which exacerbated the effects of the discrimination on both him and his children.Therefore, I am awarding the maximum award under the Acts - €6,349.

Decision

5.1 In accordance with Section 25(4) of these Acts, I conclude this investigation and issue the following decision:
- that the complainant has established a prima facie case of direct and indirect discrimination on the combined grounds of gender, civil status and family status and this has not been rebutted by the respondent

5.2 Therefore, as per Section 27(1)(a), I award the complainant €6,349 (maximum award) in compensation for the effects of the prohibited conduct

5.3 I further order, as per Section 27(1)(b), that the respondent conduct a review of its policies and procedures in relation to Rent Supplement to ensure that they are in compliance with these Acts with particular reference to how separated and/or unmarried fathers are treated . Unless this decision is overturned on appeal, a report on progress of this review must be made to the Equality Authority within one year of the date of this decision. If this is not done, the Equality Authority may (with the consent of the complainant) apply to the Circuit Court for enforcement of this order under Section 31(4)(b) of the Acts.

_________________
Orlaith Mannion
Equality Officer

Footnotes:

¹ http://www.welfare.ie/en/pressoffice/Pages/pr050613a.aspx
² Unreporrtd, High Court, Barron Jo, June 6 1984, p.13
³ 3rd December 2009 Ect.Hr Application No. 22028/04
⁴ S.I. 202 of 2009 Social Welfare (Consolidated Supplementary Welfare Allowance) (Amendment) (Rent Suulement) Regulations 2009
⁵ Shannon, Geoffrey Child Law (Round Hall, 2010) p.736.
⁶ Coulter, Carol Family Law Reporting Pilot Project - Report to the board of the Courts Service (October 2007) p.51