DEC-S2014-008

The Equality Tribunal

Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2013

Equality Officer Decision

DEC-S2014-008

A Parent on behalf of her son

-v-

HSE

(Rep by Arthur Cox Solicitors)

File Ref: ES/2013/0055

Date of Issue: 12 August 2014

Keywords: Equal Status Acts 2000-2013 - disability ground - Section 3 (1)(a) - Section 3(2)(g) – Section 4(1) – Section 5(1)

1. This complaint was referred to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 29 May 2013 under the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2013 (hereinafter “the Acts”). In accordance with his powers under Section 75 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and under the Equal Status Acts, 2000-2008, the Director delegated the complaint to me, Valerie Murtagh, 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, 2000-2008. On 15 January 2014, my investigation commenced when the complaint was delegated to me. As required by Section 25(1) and as part of my investigation, an oral hearing was held on 16 April 2014. Final supplementary documentation was received by the Tribunal on 29 May 2014.

2. This dispute concerns a claim by the complainant that he was discriminated against by the respondent on the disability ground in terms of section 3 (2) (g) and section 4 of the Acts, in that, he was not provided with reasonable accommodation by the respondent in order that he avail of the services of the HSE.

3. Summary of the Complainant’s case

3.1 The complainant’s mother attended the hearing to give evidence on behalf of her son. She explained that at birth, her son’s outlook was bleak. She stated that in the meantime he has had numerous major operations which have failed but he has astounded doctors with his progress to date. The complainant’s medical conditions are epilepsy, hydrocephalus and a mild learning disability. He has been diagnosed with uncontrolled epileptic seizures. The complainant is 19 years old. The complainant’s mother submits that the complainant has been subjected to discriminatory treatment by the HSE since early 2008 and this discriminatory treatment is ongoing. In the ES form submitted to the Tribunal, her son stated “I will not be permitted to further my education/training unless I have someone to accompany me to and from Prosper F. I have been training to go to Prosper F for the past year. I have asked to go to Adult Prosper F but I will not be allowed as they do not have a private bus service and I need to travel from L to S independently on public transport. I need someone who is SAMS trained to accompany me.” In section 4 of the form, he states “I feel that I am being treated different than my fellow pupils as I am not able to travel independently due to my medical condition. I carry a bottle of Buccolam Midazolam which has to be given to me if I have a seizure as my seizures are prolonged and can be life-threatening. I am unable to travel alone so I will not be able to have my place.” The complainant’s mother contends that her son’s full medical history has not been addressed. She feels that as a mother her son’s life is being put into jeopardy due to cutbacks and that this has been happening since 4 March 2008. She submits that she has spent since 2008 going to and from meetings with the HSE to try to sort the issues out. The complainant’s mother states that when her son is unwell and unable to participate in his training programme, she receives no support from the HSE. She states that in such circumstances where her son falls ill, she has responsibility for his care. She contends that she was not notified by HSE of the cessation of the Link Worker Service that had been available to her son from 2010. She states that “his Link Worker gets sick so her son gets nothing”. With regard to her son’s education and attendance at St. M’s Special National School, she submits that her son was “left at home for 27 months and was abandoned from 4 March 2008 when he became unwell and fell out of the circle”.

3.2 The complainant’s mother claimed that her son was discriminated against as he would not be permitted to further his education/training unless he has someone to accompany him to and from Prosper F. Prosper F confirmed that he was being considered for a training place with them but they advised that they were not in a position to provide transport to any students who would be attending their training programmes. Therefore, the complainant’s mother states he was discriminated against as the transport services available to him while he attended St. M’s Special School were no longer available to him on completion of his education there and when a comparable facility was not available through Prosper F Training Centre. Following discussions, arrangements were made by the HSE including funding for an escort service on public transport for the complainant from his home to the centre on a daily basis and medical training was provided for the escort personnel so that they can assist him in an emergency situation should this arise. This arrangement commenced on 29 October 2013 and is approved on the basis of 10 hours per week for the duration of the complainant’s current training programme i.e. 3 years. The complainant’s mother stated that she was dissatisfied with these arrangements and submitted that she is “not prepared to sign anything saying M can have 10 hours a week travel to and from the Training Centre”. She also submits that these arrangements were only approved because of her complaint to the Equality Tribunal. The complainant’s mother outlined how the stress of the situation has affected her home and family life and that her health has also been seriously affected. The complainant’s mother stated that she is very annoyed over the fact that the HSE did not have the respect to inform her that her son’s link worker was out sick since April, 2013. She states that “ his link was for 8 hours per week for him to go to a club called ``Remember Us`` that help special needs children to become involved in society yet when his link worker gets sick, her son gets nothing.” The complainant’s mother knew once her son finished in St. M’s that he would lose 4 hours as this location House funded those hours. However, when she queried where her son’s four hours had gone, the disability manager advised her that she was new. The complainant’s mother states that she feels powerless. Her main issue is that she is not prepared to sign any documentation to say her son can have 10 hours per week to travel to and from the Training centre yet if her son is sick, he gets no support whatsoever. The complainant’s mother wants, in the event of her son getting sick and being unable to attend the Training centre that she retains the 10 hours in the form of home help care. She reiterated throughout the course of the hearing that she wants to be a mother to her son and not just his carer. The complainant’s mother submitted that over the past ten years, she has fought on her son’s behalf to get the necessary support for him and this has come with considerable cost to her family. It has put a strain on her family life and her ability to parent her other two children.

4. Submission on behalf of respondent

Preliminary Issues

4.1 The respondent submits, as a preliminary issue, that the complainant failed to comply with section 21 of the Equal Status Acts 2000 – 2011. Section 21(2) of the Acts provides;

“Before seeking redress under this section, the Complainant-

(a) shall, within two months after the prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred, or, where more than one incident of prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred, within two months after the last such occurrence, notify the Respondent in writing of – (i) the nature of the allegation, (ii) the Complainant’s intention, if not satisfied with the Respondent’s response to the allegation, to seek redress under this Act and

(b) may in that notification, with a view to assisting the Complainant in deciding whether to refer the case to the Director, question the Respondent in writing so as to obtain material information and the Respondent may, if the Respondent so wishes, reply top any such questions.”

The respondent submits that it is clear from the use of the word “shall” in section 21(2)(a) that the complainant is obliged to notify the respondent in writing of the allegation before issuing a claim. The respondent argues that this was not done in this case because the ES.1 form was issued by the complainant on the same date as the ES.3 form - 27 May 2013. (The date on the ES.3 form of 27 May 2012 is clearly an error – it was date stamped as received by the Equality Tribunal on 29 May 2013 and clearly therefore, the date is 29 May 2013.) The respondent submits, that if the Tribunal decides it has jurisdiction to hear the complaint notwithstanding the above point, the Tribunal should only examine, in the first instance, any alleged acts of discrimination occurring in the period of six months predating the lodging of the claim i.e. in the six month period prior to 29 May 2013. The respondent argues that it is only if the complainant can discharge the prima facie burden of proof in respect of any acts of alleged discrimination that occurred during that six month period that the Tribunal should examine any alleged acts of discrimination occurring prior to the said six month period.

4.2 The respondent vehemently refutes the allegation of discrimination and contends that the complainant was treated with dignity and respect at all times in his interaction with its services. The respondent states that its services are delivered to all persons regardless of their level of ability or circumstances, without prejudice or discrimination in any respect. The complainant, in the ES.1 form, stated that he was being discriminated against stating “I am not allowed to travel on public transport alone due to my medical condition and there is no funding to allow me to get someone to accompany me to Prosper F in Adult Services.” The respondent submits that the Equality Officer for the HSE e-mailed the complainant’s mother on 3 July 2013 advising her that the HSE was examining the feasibility of providing support for her son to enable him attend a Rehabilitation Programme, on completion of his current education programme at location M. A further letter issued by the HSE’s Equality Officer to the complainant’s mother on 9 July 2013 advising her that a meeting had taken place on 5 July attended by HSE and the Training centre’s representatives and that additional clarification is required regarding specific medical information relating to the complainant. On 18 October, 2013, the complainant’s parents were invited to a meeting with a number of relevant personnel of the HSE which was convened in order to deal with the complaints as outlined in ES.1 & ES.3 forms and with the complainant’s particular reference to his attendance at the rehabilitation training centre. At this meeting, it was stated that the complainant had commenced the training programme on 23 September 2013 and was progressing very well.

4.3 Subsequently on 30 October 2013, the respondent issued a letter to the complainant’s mother stating; “In relation to the travel aspect of your complaint, it was confirmed that the HSE will provide support to (the complainant) to attend the programme in Prosper F. The HSE will provide funding for an escort on public transport for (the complainant) on his bus journey to Prosper F in the morning and on the return journey home in the evening. The arrangement will continue for the duration of (the complainant’s) attendance at the training programme. The escort will also administer medication to (the complainant) should any emergency situation arise while on public transport travelling to or from his training programme. To facilitate these new arrangements, the HSE will provide funding for 10 hours each week i.e. 2 hours per day, Monday to Friday to enable the escort travel on public transport with (the complainant) to and from his training course. The funding for this arrangement has been derived from the re-organisation of other HSE arrangements that were in place for (the complainant) i.e. the HSE Home Help Scheme (2 hours weekly) and Location A’s Link Worker arrangements (4 hours weekly) (Note: the Link Worker Scheme was available to (the complainant) during his attendance at Location A and entitlement to this scheme ceased on leaving this service in June 2013. The additional 4 hours required will be funded by HSE. On this basis, the other arrangements referred to i.e. Home Help and Link Worker are ceased with immediate effect in order to facilitate the revised arrangements as outlined above. The person who will accompany (the complainant) while travelling to and from the Training will be sourced from within the Home Help Service. It was acknowledged at the meeting on 18 October that it will be necessary to have more than one person available to support (the complainant) in this regard so that there are no shortfalls in this service. Concerns regarding encouraging (the complainant’s) independence whilst simultaneously ensuring his safety during travel were acknowledged. It was agreed that the Disability Service Manager, HSE would contact the Home Help Services following the meeting and request that contact is made with the family directly in order to progress arrangements. Detailed discussions also took place at the meeting regarding the issue of administering (the complainant’s) medication in an emergency situation while he is travelling between his home and the Training centre. It was acknowledged that the person/s who would accompany (the complainant) would require the necessary training. On completion of this training, the new arrangements regarding travel can be activated.”

4.4 On 5 December 2013, the respondent received a telephone call from the complainant’s mother enquiring about the possibility of her being employed directly by the named Home Care Ltd. to act as (the complainant’s) escort on public transport while travelling to and from the Training centre. On 31 December 2013, the respondent wrote to the complainant’s mother advising that existing HSE policy does not provide for contracting relative carers into such an arrangement. The respondent wholly refutes the allegation of discrimination. It states that it has endeavoured to support the complainant in the transition from his former school to the Training centre of his choice. On confirmation that he had achieved the training place in September 2013, the HSE and the Rehabilitation Training Guidance Service worked jointly to support him in accessing the training programme. Representatives of the HSE met with members of the Training centre on a number of occasions to identify any supports that would be required for the complainant to enable him participate fully in his training programme. The issues of transport for the complainant between his home and the training centre and that of appropriately trained escorts to ensure his well-being on the journey emerged as priority issues. The respondent submits that HSE support for the complainant will be provided on the basis of 5 days per week and is approved for three years i.e. the duration of the programme the complainant is on. The respondent submits that the Training programme for the complainant costs €13,500 per year. The complainant gets a training bonus of €32 per week. The cost of the transport escort service for the complainant from December 2013 – March 2014 was €2,500. The respondent argues that, if anything, the complainant is getting more favourable treatment than another person with a different disability.

4.5 The complainant’s mother contends that when her son gets sick and cannot avail of the Training programme that he should be allowed to retain the hours on a home-help basis. In response to that point, the respondent states that there is a separate mechanism to get assessment for the home-help service and that the complainant’s mother would have to request same through the Public Health Nurse and be assessed on specific criteria for same. The respondent submits that the complainant is exceptional, in that, he is the only person on the Programme getting escorts on a Monday to Friday basis and that he is, in fact, receiving more favourable treatment than persons with other disabilities. Mr. Q who is the Rehabilitation Training Guidance Co-ordinator gave testimony and stated that the purpose of the Training Programme is to provide a supportive and structured learning environment that enables young adults to become active and contributing citizens. He states that in the case of the complainant, the Programme was focused on developing his personal and social skills and training to prepare him for work as he had an ambition to become a hairdresser and the Programme they are providing will assist hugely in that regard. In the case of the complainant, they wanted to assist him to give him skills to have a greater level of independence. Mr. Q states that he reviews all their clients at the Training centre and the feedback in relation to the complainant is that he is making substantial and very positive progress at the centre. He states that the complainant is an asset to the Programme and that the centre is very lucky to have a person of his calibre and that academically, he is the strongest of all the participants. Representatives running the Programme contend that the complainant is hugely popular on the course and has a great personality and outlook. They also state that he is a pleasure to deal and work with. Mr. Q stated that there is a weekly review of progress on the Training Programme and regular feedback is given to participants and their families. In the case of the complainant, his key worker is C and he liaises with the complainant and his family. Mr. Q states that the majority of modules are at Fetac Level 3 and the course is subject to a quality assurance system. Mr. Q attends the centre every six weeks and meets with management and staff to review the training and progress of the 30 trainees. Their modus operandi is to support the trainees own aspirations and develop them to the fullest extent possible.

4.6 In relation to the complainant’s mother’s contention that the complainant was “abandoned from 4 March 2008 when he became unwell and fell out of the circle you must be in to get services in this country”; the respondent submits that over the years the complainant and his family have received a wide range of services and supports from the HSE in the form of (PHN) Public Health Nursing services and Home Help services from F Home Care Ltd. and other services including the following;

• seizure detector installed in September 2006 – HSE covered cost of installation and maintenance
• 43 entries in Public Health notes regarding home visits to the family home between 2 April 2008 and 17 November 2011
• support regarding the complainant’s discharge from Beaumont Hospital
• wound care provision
• application for Home Support Package
• discussions with the complainant’s school and St. M’s House regarding recommencement of school
• home visit to the complainant on 24 October 2008 by PHN who established that his needs were being met at that time
• application on 2 September 2008 by PHN to assist the complainant’s mother in taking her children to school to enable the complainant’s mother to take care of the complainant who was post-surgery, complainant’s mother declined this offer
• application to the local County Council from PHN in April 2008 to advocate for funding for a house extension as a matter of urgency
• request by PHN on 7 April 2008 for “hospital bed” for the home of the complainant as post-surgery complainant could only sleep upright. Maintenance costs met by HSE
• personal safety alarm provided on 19 August 2008
• “hardship” medicines provided in 2009
• wheelchair supplied in 2011
• home-help service commenced in October 2010 – 2 hours per week, currently there are two hours support available to the complainant’s mother per week for household duties. This service is delivered on a Wednesday from 10 am – 12 noon.
• transport support and escort personnel (who have undergone appropriate medical training) – 10 hours per week funded by Disability Services Division to facilitate travel between complainant’s home and the Training Centre. This arrangement commenced in October 2013 and is for a 3 year period.

4.7 The respondent fails to understand the complainant’s mother’s allegation that her son was “abandoned” by HSE during the period from 2008 and that the HSE discriminated against her son on the grounds of his disability. The respondent refutes this allegation in its entirety and submits that the complainant and his mother were afforded significant supports in terms of services and appliances during this period. The respondent states that during the period in question, other services offered to the complainant were refused e.g.

• Home Support Service (HSE)
• Respite Service
• Psychology Service Support
• Support for return to full-time schooling on a phased basis

In relation to the cessation of the Link Worker Service available to the complainant at St. M’s House including transport to and from school and medical support; the respondent states that entitlement to these supports ceased as the complainant had concluded his education at this location in June 2013. The respondent states that the complainant was subject to the same policy and procedure as any other student leaving this facility to move to adult service provision. The respondent submits that in mid April 2013, the complainant’s Link/Daybreak worker became ill and went on sick leave. The respondent admits that there was a breakdown of communication at that point and this information was not conveyed to the complainant’s mother in a prompt manner. However, in late April, 2013 staff of St. M’s House discussed the issue with the complainant’s mother and she advised them that she did not wish to have the person who delivered the Link/Daybreak service replaced at that time.

4.8 In relation to the provision of an escort service for the complainant, the respondent submits that it was necessary to seek additional clarification from Beaumont Hospital regarding the complainant’s medical conditions specifically and the degree to which he needed to be supported on public transport. The requirement for individuals with the appropriate medical training to accompany the complainant on his journeys was a further consideration. HSE funding for any proposed solutions also needed to be identified. Once the above issues had been finalised satisfactorily, the Disability Services Division was in a position to proceed with contracting Home Care Ltd. to deliver this escort service on its behalf. Three employees of Home Care Ltd. were identified for inclusion on a roster to provide escort services on public transport. These personnel then had to attend the relevant medical training necessary to support the complainant in the event of an emergency situation, prior to this support commencing. The three care assistants in question were provided with a key skill set to support the complainant on the journey to and from the centre. The respondent submits that from a procedural perspective it was also necessary to establish an “Epilepsy Care Plan” for the complainant to support the training. The respondent submits that there are other trainees with epilepsy and other complex medical needs but they are required to travel independently to and from the centre. The respondent states that it will continue to review and monitor the implementation of the bus escort support for the complainant. In conjunction with Home Care Ltd. the service has also developed a “Service User Review” form that will be discussed with the complainant on a weekly basis. Feedback is collated on a weekly basis regarding the operation of the service and any concerns on the part of the complainant can be noted and discussed. This arrangement is the first of its kind in this area’s Disability Services Division and the Rehabilitation Training Guidance Service and both service providers are happy to support the complainant in the pursuit of his further training and education objectives. Both service providers are very pleased to receive positive feedback from the Training Centre in recent weeks confirming that the complainant is progressing exceptionally well in his training course and both services wish him continued success for the remainder of the programme. In conclusion, the respondent wholly denies the allegation of discrimination against the complainant on the grounds of disability and states that there is no basis for such a claim.

5. Conclusions of the Equality Officer

5.1 The matter referred for investigation was whether or not the complainant was discriminated against on the disability ground contrary to the Equal Status Acts. Section 38A (1) of the Equal Status Acts sets out the burden of proof which applies to claims of discrimination. It requires the complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts upon which s/he can rely in asserting that s/he suffered discriminatory treatment. 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 reaching my decision, I have taken into account all the written submissions and oral testimony made to me by the parties in the course of my investigation into the complaint. Section 3(1)(a) provides, inter alia, that discrimination shall be taken to occur where:

3.- (1) For the purposes of this Act, discrimination shall be taken to occur—

(a) where a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as the ‘‘discriminatory grounds)’’

Preliminary Issue
5.2 The respondent has argued that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear this complaint as the complainant is obliged to notify the respondent in writing of the allegation before issuing a claim. The respondent argues that this was not done in this case as the ES.1 form was issued by the complainant on the same date as the ES.3 form and therefore the complainant failed to comply with the notification procedures as required by section 21 of the Equal Status Acts. I put this point to the complainant’s mother on the day of the hearing and she stated that she was in regular contact with the HSE through letters, meetings and telephone contact and that the respondent was well aware as she advised them that she intended taking a complaint to the Tribunal regarding her son’s treatment. She submitted that she is a lay litigant and is not familiar with the legislation and notification requirements and that more importantly, she was in an exceptionally difficult situation dealing with her son’s disability and fighting to get access to his rights and entitlements from the HSE. Having taking all the evidence on this issue into account, I note that the complainant’s mother had considerable contact with representatives of HSE in relation to access to services for her son. I find that given the exceptional circumstances put forward by the complainant’s mother that it is fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances to use Section 21(3) of the Acts to dispense with notifications and therefore, I find that the fact she did not fully comply with the notification procedure is not fatal to the complainant’s case. I find I have jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

5.3 The complainant’s mother has outlined extensive instances of alleged discriminatory treatment from March 2008 up to the lodgment of the complaint with the Tribunal which was received on 29 May 2013. The respondent denies that any discriminatory treatment took place and outlined at paragraph 4.6 above the measures put in place over the years to accommodate the complex needs of the complainant. Having carefully considered the respondent’s responses at 4.6 above, I find that the complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination in relation to these aspects of his complaint and I find that the respondent did provide accommodations to the complainant in order for him to avail of appropriate services. I am satisfied that the cutbacks instigated in early 2008 by the respondent affected all clients of the HSE including persons with disabilities and that the complainant was not singled out for adverse treatment in this regard. The next matter I am going to examine relates to the complaint in the ES form that the respondent discriminated against the complainant and did not provide him with reasonable accommodation to access and attend a Training Programme. The complainant claimed that he was discriminated against in that he “will not be permitted to further my education/training unless I have someone to accompany me to and from Prosper F, I need someone who is SAMS trained”. Prosper F Training Services confirmed to the complainant, in its correspondence dated 27 May 2013 that he was being considered for a training place with them. It was also stated that Prosper F was not in a position to provide transport to any students who would be attending its training programmes.

5.4 I note that a representative of the HSE e-mailed the complainant’s mother on 3 July 2013 advising her that the HSE was examining the feasibility of providing support for her son to enable him attend the Rehabilitation Programme, on completion of his current education programme at location M. A further letter issued by the HSE to the complainant’s mother on 9 July 2013 advising her that a meeting took place on 5 July attended by HSE and Prosper F Training Services representatives and that additional clarification is required regarding specific medical information relating to the complainant. Subsequently, on 18 October, 2013, the complainant’s parents were invited to a meeting with a number of relevant personnel of the HSE which was convened in order to deal with the complaints as outlined in ES.1 & ES.3 forms and with his particular reference to his attendance at the rehabilitation training centre. At this meeting, it was stated that the complainant had commenced the training programme on 23 September 2013 and was progressing very well. The respondent submits that at this meeting the complainant’s parents agreed to the provision of 10 hours per week for the escort service to and from the Training centre. Having taken testimony from various witnesses for the respondent, I note that they did engage with the complainant’s mother in relation to finding a resolution to the transport arrangements and escort services for the complainant. In that regard, three employees of Home Care Ltd. were identified for inclusion on a roster to provide escort services on public transport. These personnel then had to attend the relevant medical training necessary to support the complainant in the event of an emergency situation, prior to this support commencing. The three care assistants in question were provided with a key skill set to support the complainant on the journey to and from the centre. The respondent also established an “Epilepsy Care Plan” for the complainant to support his training.

5.5 The respondent submits that there are other trainees with epilepsy and other complex medical needs but they are required to travel independently to and from the centre. The respondent states that it will continue to review and monitor the implementation of the bus escort support for the complainant. In conjunction with Home Care Ltd. the service has also developed a “Service User Review” form that is discussed with the complainant on a weekly basis and feedback is given regarding how the service is operating and any improvements which can be made. I note that the respondent has stated that this arrangement is the first of its kind in this area’s Disability Services Division and the Rehabilitation Training Guidance Service and both service providers are happy to support the complainant in the pursuit of his further training and education objectives. I also note that both service providers are very pleased to receive positive feedback from the Training Centre in recent weeks confirming that the complainant is progressing exceptionally well in his training. Having taken testimony from key employees of the Training Centre; I note their commitment and dedication to the complainant and their genuine interest in his welfare and support in the context of his ongoing training and development needs. They spoke of him in the most glowing of terms and stated that he was a great asset to the centre. They also submitted that while their background is teaching and not nursing, they have been trained in the administration of the rescue medicine for the complainant and keeping him safe is paramount. I note that the complainant’s mother’s main issue was that if her son gets sick and is unable to attend the Training Programme, the complainant “gets nothing”. She stated that she would like that he retain the 10 hours in the form of home-help if he is out sick. The respondent states that it is not within their gift to give the complainant 10 hours in the form of home-help if he is out sick and that there is a separate mechanism to apply for the home-help arrangement through the local PHN service. I consider that it is a matter for the respondent as to how it allocates its resources in relation to the various schemes it operates once there is no inherent discrimination within same. Having examined the evidence, I can find no evidence of discrimination in relation to the administration and implementation of the home help scheme. On the day of the hearing, I questioned the respondent on the issue of the complainant’s sick leave from commencement to date on the Training course. The respondent stated that the complainant had 11 certified sick days and 8 days which were uncertified since the programme commenced which was a very good attendance rate. The respondent advised that the training allowance continues to be paid when a trainee is on sick leave.

5.6 This is a tragic case and was a very emotive one. The complainant’s mother gave extensive testimony of the debilitating nature and complex needs relating to her son’s disability. She stated that she is trying very hard for her son to have as normal a life as possible. She reiterated throughout the course of the hearing that she wants to be a mother to her son and not just his carer. She submitted that over the past ten years, she has fought on her son’s behalf to get the necessary support for him and this has come with considerable cost to her family. It has put a strain on her family life and her ability to parent her other two children. Having reviewed all the documentation and witness testimony, I am very cognisant of the very difficult and stressful position the complainant’s mother is in, given her son’s disability and the impact it has on her and her family life and her wish for her son to have as normal a life as possible. However, having carefully examined all the evidence in this case, on balance, I can find no evidence of any treatment provided by the respondent that is in contravention of the equal status legislation. Based on the evidence, I find that the respondent extensively engaged with the complainant’s mother in relation to the provision of services and supports for her son. In relation to the specific allegation that he was discriminated against in the context of transport support and escort personnel (with appropriate medical training) so that he could attend the Training Programme; I find that there is no evidence to support the complainant’s mother’s argument in this regard. Taking all of the evidence into account, I am satisfied that the complainant was given the necessary reasonable accommodation to access and attend the course. Therefore, I find that the complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination on grounds of disability.

6. Decision

6.1 In reaching my decision, I have taken into account all the submissions, written and oral that were made to me. In accordance with section 25(4) of the Equal Status Acts, I conclude this investigation and issue the following decision. I find that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case that the respondent discriminated against him on grounds of his disability.

Valerie Murtagh

Equality Officer

12 August 2014