THE EQUALITY TRIBUNAL
EQUAL STATUS ACTS 2000-2012
Decision DEC – S2014-25
PARTIES
Maria Rodriguez
-V-
Wicklow Homes (Seamus Eager)
File Reference: ES/2012/171
Date of Issue: 19th December 2014
Keywords
Equal Status Acts 2000-2012, Direct discrimination, Section 3(1) - less favourable treatment - gender, 3(2)(a) - race, 3(2)(h) - victimisation 3(2)(j) - Section 5(1), discrimination in relation to the provision of a service – failure to attend hearing.
1. Delegation under Equal Status Acts, 2000-2012
1.1 The complainant referred a complaint under the Equal Status Acts to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on the 5th of December 2012 alleging discrimination contrary to the Acts. On the 9th of September 2014, in accordance with his powers under section 75 of the Employment Equality Acts and under the Equal Status Acts, the Director delegated the case to me, Marian Duffy, 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. On this date my investigation commenced. A submission was received from the complainant on the 20th of June 2013. As required by Section 25(1) and as part of my investigation, I proceeded to hearing on the on the 2nd of December2014.
2. Dispute
2.1 The dispute concerns a claim by Maria Rodriguez (hereinafter the complainant) that she was discriminated against on the race ground by Wicklow Homes (hereinafter the respondent). The complainant alleges that the respondent discriminated against her and victimised her on the gender and race grounds in terms of Sections 3(1)(a), 3(2)(a), 3(2)(h) and 3(2)(j) of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 - 2012 contrary to Section 5(1) of that Act. She also alleges that she was harassed contrary to section 11 of the Act.
2.2 On the 10th of October 2014, the Tribunal notified both parties by registered and ordinary post that a hearing of the case would take place on the on the 2nd of December 2014 and that their attendance was required. The complainant, who lives in Spain, was also notified of the hearing date by email. The registered and ordinary post sent to the address provided by the complainant was returned. On the 2nd of December I sat to hear the case as notified. The respondent attended the hearing as scheduled but the complainant did not attend.
3. Conclusion of Equality Officer
3.1 I am satisfied the complainant was notified at the address provided by her that a hearing in his case was scheduled for the 2nd of December 2014. It appears from the returned mail that the complainant is unknown at this address however this was the only address provided by the complainant to the Tribunal. Furthermore there was no indication that the email notification, sent to the email address used by the complainant in her communications with the Tribunal, was not delivered. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the complainant was validly notified of the hearing and that her failure to attend was unreasonable in the circumstances.
4. Decision
In the light of the foregoing, and in accordance with Section 79(6) of the Act, I issue the following decision:
As part of my investigation under Section 25 of the Act, I am obliged to hold a Hearing. I find that the complainant’s failure to attend such a hearing was unreasonable in the circumstances and that any obligation under Section 25 has ceased. As no evidence was given at the Hearing in support of the allegation of discrimination, I conclude the investigation and find against the complainant.
_______________________
Marian Duffy
Equality Officer
19th December 2014