EQUAL STATUS ACTS 2000-2015
DECISION NO. DEC-S2016-023
PARTIES
A ServiceUser
-AND-
A Forum
(Represented by Glen Gibbons BL, instructed by the Chief State Solicitor’s Office)
File Reference: ES/2013/154
Date of Issue: 18th April 2016
1. DISPUTE
1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by the Complainant, who is hard of hearing, that the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Forum’) failed to provide him with reasonable accommodation to enable him to properly hear proceedings whilst attending at the Forum in question, contrary to Sections 3(2)(g), 4 and 5 of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2015 (hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Acts’).
1.2 The Complainant referred a complaint under the Acts to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 1st November 2013. On 13th January 2016, in accordance with his powers under Section 75 of the Employment Equality Acts and under these Acts, the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission (hereinafter ‘the WRC’) delegated the case to me, Aideen Collard, an Adjudication Officer / Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director General under Part III of the Equal Status Acts. This is the date that my investigation commenced. As required by Section 25(1) and as part of my investigation, I proceeded to hearing on 19th February 2016. The Complainant represented himself and the Respondent was represented by the Chief State Solicitor’s Office and had a number of witnesses in attendance. Additional documentation was received from the Respondent and all oral evidence presented and submissions and documentation submitted before and during the hearing have been taken into consideration. I also indicated that I would be relying upon the key statutory provisions and relevant case law in my consideration of this matter.
1.3 This decision pursuant to Section 25(4) of the Acts is issued by me following the establishment of the WRC on 1st October 2015, as an Adjudication Officer who was an Equality Officer prior to 1st October 2015, in accordance with Section 83(3) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015.
2. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
2.1 The Respondent raised a preliminary objection to this complaint and contended that it was not within time on the basis that the Complainant’s notification was made on 19th September 2013, over six months after the alleged failure to provide reasonable accommodation and well in excess of the two month time limit under Section 21(2)(a) of the Acts. In his notification, the Complainant referred to his complaint as arising on 7th March 2013 and as ongoing as the Respondent had delayed in replying to his latest correspondence and he was awaiting a response. As the determination of this issue required the Parties going into evidence, this matter was left to be determined after the conclusion of the hearing.
3. SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINANT'S SUBMISSIONS & EVIDENCE
3.1 The Complainant gave evidence and confirmed that at the material time of the circumstances giving rise to his complaint he was employed as an advocate for a Community Legal Services Organisation, which required regular attendances at various dispute resolution fora. He confirmed that he had been hard of hearing for a number of years and had worn hidden hearing aids since 2007 to address this impairment. He said that he had attended the Forum in question on a number of occasions over the years to assist clients and depending on where he was seated, struggled to follow proceedings. He estimated that he had attended the Forum three or four times before 27th February 2013 when matters came to a head. On that occasion, the Complainant had indicated his difficulties to a member of the Forum during a recess and upon resuming, she had asked everyone to speak up which he felt had not adequately addressed the issue. A member of staff had also showed him the induction loop system but it materialised that this was not compatible with his digital hearing aids as they did not have a t-setting required to tune into this system. He confirmed that he has recently availed of hearing aids that have a t-setting and has since availed of the use of an induction loop system once or twice in public places. However, changing over his digital hearing aids to hearing aids with a t-setting at the material time would have been cost prohibitive for him. He said that he may have attended at the Forum in question on a number of occasions since 27th February 2013 and his difficulties with hearing proceedings were an ongoing issue.
3.2 In an effort to find a solution to his difficulties, he wrote to the Respondent on 7th March 2013 wherein he stated: “The last occasion I was at the (Forum) (27/2/3013) a member of staff showed me the loop system… but unfortunately as I have digital hearing aids they are not compatible with this system.” He requested if one of the hearing rooms could be fitted with “Audio equipment” to accommodate “people like myself”. He also sent an online enquiry on 9th April 2013 to the overseeing Body’s Customer Service and Information Unit. He received no response and wrote again to the Respondent’s Head by letter dated 24th April 2013 making a similar request and seeking confirmation of the person in respect of whom his request should be directed. He received an email dated 26th April 2013 from the overseeing Body’s Customer Service and Information Unit referring him back to the Forum in question and stating: “The issues you have addressed in your email are not issues that we can help you with at this office.” The Complainant also received a reply dated 29th April 2013 from the Respondent’s Secretary apologising for the delay and stating that the Government Department responsible for the Respondent’s budget had been asked to review this matter and its response was awaited. By further letter dated 1st May 2013 to the Complainant, the Secretary confirmed that the Department in question had sought advice from DeafHear (a charity providing a range of services to deaf and hard of hearing people) and that they had advised that the induction loop system is the most widely used for hearing aid users, and as such, the Respondent was compliant with the legislation. The Respondent was also advised that there was no alternative system for those without a t-switch on their hearing aid/s but that two enhanced options were suggested, being (a) an FM system or (b) a loop receiver i.e. a portable receiver with a set of headphones. The letter went on to state: “Unfortunately due to the current economic climate the Department is not in the position to install a FM system. However, it will consider, depending on cost, purchasing a limited number of loop receivers (portable devices with a set of headphones).”
3.3 The Complainant replied by letter dated 3rd May 2013 stating: “I think there was a misrepresentation of the audio equipment that I requested. I was requesting that a public address system (microphone/speakers) be installed in one of the rooms at the (Forum), this system is widely used in the District, Circuit and High Courts and is considered best practice across Europe.” He also referred to the personalised set of needs of those who attend at the Forum. By letter dated 9th May 2013, the Secretary responded stating that a copy of his correspondence would be forwarded to the Government Department in question, that the Respondent’s budget is significantly lower than that of the higher courts, and as it had been fully earmarked, did not foresee funding for such an additional service in 2013.
3.4 By letter dated 16th July 2013, the Complainant wrote again to the Secretary enquiring as to whether there had been any further developments and requesting details of the relevant contact person in the Department in question so that he could pursue the matter further. When he had not received any response, he submitted a notification dated 19th September 2013 to the Respondent under the Equal Status Acts, also requesting further information. By letter dated 11th October 2013, the Business Services Unit responded confirming (1) that the Department had considered his proposal for a public address system to assist clients with a hearing impairment but as the hearing rooms are quite small, where clients do not have a hearing impairment, feedback from the participants would indicate that such a system is not required, (2) it was aware of its legal obligations and had consulted with all the relevant stakeholders who confirmed that the induction loop system was the preferred option by the deaf community, (3) noting that this was not the Complainant’s preference in relation to his specific requirements and being mindful that other clients may have similar, loop receiver units had been purchased to alleviate his difficulty in accessing the Respondent’s services and (4) that the Respondent was undergoing a change process including a move in location and a detailed brief had been sent to its Department for consideration when selecting the new location. In the circumstances, there were no plans to procure a public address system. The Secretary also responded by letter dated 17th October 2013 noting that the notification was outside the requisite two month time limit and any extension allowed since the purported incident referred to in the notification arose on 7th March 2013. It also reiterated the Respondent’s position and confirmed that its Department does not have a designated Disability Officer but that the Business Services Unit deals with issues of special facilities to ensure access to its services.
3.5 The Complainant responded by letter dated 29th October 2013 disagreeing with the Respondent’s position that a public address system was not required and repeating his own position regarding the difficulties with hearing proceedings at the Forum in question. He also referred to a hearing he had attended on 21st October 2013, where he had enquired about the loop receivers but staff were unaware of their existence. He complained that his request had been handled extremely badly given the sensitive nature of his disability. By letter dated 5th November 2013, the Business Services Unit wrote confirming that the loop receivers in question were received on 30th October 2013 and were available for use at the Forum. It also expressed regret that the Complainant felt that his request was badly handled.
3.6 Shortly thereafter, the Complainant attended at the Forum and tried out the loop receivers which he found to be unsuitable as feedback was encountered, they were clunky and as they require headphones, they would bring undue attention onto the user. At no stage was he invited to any face to face consultation with the Respondent which might have allowed a better understanding of his needs. He submitted that the Respondent and the Department responsible for the budget for such equipment could have engaged more proactively to find a reasonable solution to his hearing difficulties such as a portable amplification system similar to that used to conduct the instant hearing of his complaint.
3.7 In summary, the Complainant submitted that the Equal Status Acts placed clear obligations on public bodies to proactively provide reasonable accommodation and demonstrate in a robust manner that they have explored all available options. He contended that the Respondent had failed to discharge this duty in terms of responding to his request for reasonable accommodation to enable him to access its services. He highlighted the particular difficulties experienced by people who are hard of hearing and the hidden nature of the disability. The Complainant referred to Section 4 of the Equal Status Acts and submitted that the Respondent had never provided any costings in relation to his request for special facilities as raised in his notification. He was also critical of the delays in responding to his correspondence which suggested no clear procedures for dealing with disability issues. He also contended that the Respondent’s staff should undergo disability awareness training that would enable them to deal effectively with matters of this nature. He contended that the duty to provide reasonable accommodation is ongoing and “if an adjustment is provided and this has been found to be not suitable in overcoming the ‘disadvantage’ the service provider must think again. They cannot just assume that having provided one accommodation, their duty to do so is discharged.” In this respect, he relied upon the Circuit Court Judgment in Deans -v- City Council (Unreported Circuit Court Judgement of Judge Tony Hunt dated 15th April 2008) and the Equality Tribunal Decision in a Complainant -v- A Choir DEC-S2012-004 in terms of the tests laid down for determining what constitutes ‘reasonable accommodation’ under the Acts. He also referred to the Disability Act 2005 and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in terms of the Respondent’s obligations to people with disabilities.
3.8 When questioned, the Complainant said he was unclear as to the precise requirements for accommodating his hearing difficulties at hearings and that this had been a learning process for him. He also contended that the portable amplification system which had been used at this hearing would have been sufficient to meet his needs but he had not been aware of its existence at the material time. Counsel for the Respondent put it to Complainant that in fact it was on foot of a conversation he had had with a member of staff on or about 22nd August 2012 that led to the induction loop system being installed at the Forum. The Complainant accepted that a conversation regarding the use of the loop system had taken place although not the specifics. He also said that he was unaware of the incompatibility of his hearing aids with the induction loop system at that time. Counsel also put it to him that the permanent public address system that he had requested would cost an estimated €11,291 to fit out a hearing room as per a quote from a company in the area submitted in evidence. It was put to the Complainant that this was more than a nominal or token sum within the meaning of the Acts. The Complainant contended that this constituted a nominal sum given the Respondent’s budget. It was also put to the Complainant that the Acts do not impose an obligation upon the Respondent to meet every single demand or achieve perfection and that the loop receivers had been provided to address his particular hearing difficulties.
4. SUMMARY OF THE RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS & EVIDENCE
4.1 Although not taking issue with most of the background facts documented in the aforesaid exchange of correspondence, the Respondent wholly refuted the Complainant’s assertions on the basis that he had misconstrued the meaning of ‘reasonable accommodation’ under Section 4 of the Equal Status Acts.
4.2 A member of the Respondent’s administrative staff gave evidence on its behalf, recalling a conversation she had had with the Complainant on or about 22nd August 2012 at the Forum in question when he had enquired as to whether there was an induction loop system in place. She had followed up with the Business Services Unit responsible for such services and an induction loop system was installed. At that stage, there had been no indication from the Complainant that his hearing aids were incompatible. On foot of his correspondence as set out above, she followed up and arranged for the purchase of the loop receivers which could be used with the existing induction loop system and would allow the Complainant to tune in with the use of headphones. Extra sets were also purchased for anyone similarly affected. She had a further interaction with the Complainant in relation to using the loop receivers. She also confirmed that the Business Services Unit provides whatever special facilities are requested to enable users with disabilities to access its services and she was not aware of any complaints of hearing difficulties.
4.3 A member of staff from the Business Services Unit confirmed that the Respondent was not made aware that the Complainant was unable to use the induction loop system and that same had been installed at a cost of approximately €3,000 further to his enquiry regarding same on or about 22nd August 2012. When she became aware that of the Complainant’s difficulties, she contacted DeafHear and they suggested either an FM system which would entail installing a new system or loop receivers which could be linked into the existing system. As the induction loop system was already in place, being the preferred system, it made sense to purchase the loop receivers and accordingly 20 sets of disposable headphones were purchased. She also confirmed the Respondent’s position as set out above including the fact that she had made enquiries regarding the installation of a permanent public address system and it was not felt that it would be useful. A quote from a company who provide such equipment was submitted in evidence confirming that it would cost an estimated €11,291 to fit out a hearing room with such a system. Given that a change of premises was imminent, it also did not make sense to install this system at such a cost. However, the Government Department responsible had a detailed brief in relation to any future premises in terms of the adaptations required to enable people with disabilities to fully access hearings.
4.4 The aforesaid witnesses also confirmed that when requested in advance, an amplification system such as the one used for this hearing had been hired to facilitate users who were hard of hearing on a number of occasions. The hearing notices also require confirmation of any special facilities required. Had the Complainant made them aware of his specific needs in advance of any hearing he was attending at the Forum they would have organised same for him but no such requests had ever been made.
4.5 Counsel for the Respondent submitted that at all material times it had tried to act reasonably to meet the special needs of its users when any difficulties were flagged in advance. It had installed the induction loop system upon the Complainant bringing this to its attention and this operates well as the preferred option for most users with hearing aids. Further to the Complainant notifying the Respondent of the incompatibility of his hearing aids with the system, the Respondent had consulted with DeafHear and the loop receivers were purchased as a solution to his difficulties and anyone else similarly affected.
4.6 In submissions, Counsel for the Respondent also referred to the meaning of ‘reasonable accommodation’ under Section 4 of the Equal Status Acts and submitted that the obligation on a service provider to do “…all that is reasonable to accommodate the needs of a person with a disability…” is subject to whether “such provision would give rise to a cost, other than a nominal cost, to the provider of the service in question.” As to what is meant by nominal cost in terms of the provision of services to a person with a disability under the Acts, he relied upon the Supreme Court Judgment in Re: The Employment Bill (1997) 2 IR 321 to submit that a nominal cost should be just that and should not be measured against the Respondent’s means. In this respect, the cost of installing a public address system at the Forum as requested by the Complainant represents much more than a ‘nominal cost’ as defined by Section 4(2) and would be a sizeable cost which had not been budgeted for by the Department responsible for financing. Counsel for the Respondent also referred to the Equality Tribunal’s Decision in Hennessy -v- Network Catering (DEC-S2009-029), where it was noted that notwithstanding the absence of a projected costing by the Respondent as to the requested modification of train carriages, it still inferred that the cost of modification would be more than minimal. For the aforesaid reasons, it was submitted that the Complainant has not made out a prima facie case and his complaint is without foundation.
5. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE ADJUDICATION / EQUALITY OFFICER
5.1 The issues for decision are whether this complaint is within time and if so, whether the Respondent failed to provide the Complainant with reasonable accommodation in terms of accessing its services.
5.2 Firstly in relation to the issue of time, Section 21(2)(a) of the Acts provides that before seeking redress under the Acts, a complainant shall “…within 2 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 2 months after the last such occurrence”,notify the respondent in writing of the nature of the allegations and of the complainant’s intention, if not satisfied with the response, to seek redress under the Acts. Section (3)(a) provides that this may be extended for reasonable cause up to a period of four months or exceptionally, the notification requirement may be dispensed with where fair and reasonable. Section 21(6) then requires a complaint to be brought within six months “…from the date of the occurrence of the prohibited conduct to which the case relates or, as the case may be, the date of its most recent occurrence.” In the instant case, the notification was sent on 19th September 2013 and the complaint was received on 1st November 2013. It is clear from the evidence that the Complainant’s dissatisfaction with the Respondent’s provision of reasonable accommodation related to the fact that his hearing aids were incompatible with the existing induction loop system and first arose when he attended a hearing at the Forum on 27th February 2013. Thereafter he engaged in correspondence with the Respondent from his first letter dated 7th March 2013 seeking reasonable accommodation until matters crystalised in or around 16th July 2013, when it became clear to the Complainant that a further response to his request would not be forthcoming. On that date, he wrote again to the Secretary enquiring as to whether there had been any further developments and requesting details of the relevant contact person in the Department in question so that he could pursue the matter further. When he did not receive any response to that letter, he submitted his notification dated 19th September 2013. A similar situation arose in Deans -v- City Council and I also take the view that the Complainant should not be penalised for engaging in correspondence with the Respondent with a view to finding a resolution to his difficulties. I am therefore satisfied that the last incident of alleged prohibited conduct occurred in or around 16th July 2013 or shortly thereafter when it became clear that there would be no further response. I also note that the Respondent suffered no prejudice and that any delay was at the lower end of the scale. I find there is reasonable cause for extending the time required for the written notification until 19th September 2013.
5.3 Having granted any necessary extension of time, I now turn to deal with the substantive complaint. Section 38A of the Acts sets out the burden of proof which applies to all claims of discrimination under the Equal Status Acts and requires the Complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts from which the discrimination alleged may be inferred. 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.
5.4 Section 4 of the Equal Status Acts sets out the requirements for ‘reasonable accommodation’ as follows:
“(1) For the purposes of this Act discrimination includes a refusal or failure by the provider of a service to do all that is reasonable to accommodate the needs of a person with a disability by providing special treatment or facilities, if without such special treatment or facilities it would be impossible or unduly difficult for the person to avail himself or herself of the service.
(2) A refusal or failure to provide the special treatment or facilities to which subsection (1) refers shall not be deemed reasonable unless such provision would give rise to a cost, other than a nominal cost, to the provider of the service in question.”
There is no issue that the Complainant has a disability within the meaning of Section 2 of the Acts and is hard of hearing requiring hearing aids to enable him to hear properly. It is also accepted that this complaint refers to access of a service within the meaning of the Acts. It relates to the Respondent’s administrative functions as opposed to any quasi-judicial function of the Forum. It is not in issue that the Complainant’s hearing aids were previously incompatible with the induction loop system in place and the Respondent was made first aware of these difficulties in his letter dated 7th March 2013. I therefore accept that the Complainant may have had difficulty in hearing and/or following proceedings at the Forum in question without the provision of special facilities. The matter for me to determine is whether, in accordance with Section 4(1), the Respondent did "all that is reasonable” to provide special facilities to the Complainant upon becoming aware of his particular difficulties subject to Section 4(2).
5.5 A fundamental component of ‘reasonable accommodation’ is the duty on a service provider under these Acts or an employer under the Employment Equality Acts to engage in an acceptable level of consultation regarding the specific needs of a person with a disability. In the instant case, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent failed to consult adequately in order to understand his needs. Both the Equality Tribunal and the Labour Court have issued a considerable body of decisions requiring a high standard of consultation in such cases and this Tribunal (now the WRC) has taken the view that although the level of reasonable accommodation may differ, similar standards of consultation should be applied in cases that have been referred under the Equal Status Acts, considering that the legal provisions are effectively the same. It is also well established that the nature and the extent of such consultation will depend upon the circumstances of each case. (A Complainant -v- A Choir DEC-S2012-004)
5.6 In assessing whether the Respondent consulted with the Complainant adequately in relation to ascertaining his particular needs for the purposes of making reasonable accommodation, it is necessary to examine the sequence of events and correspondence outlined above leading up to this claim. Beginning with the Complainant’s first interaction with the Respondent regarding this issue, I accept the clear evidence on behalf of the Respondent that the induction loop system was installed following a conversation between the Complainant and a member of staff on or about 22nd August 2012. The Complainant himself said that he was unaware of the incompatibility of his particular hearing aids with the induction loop system at that time. Therefore, the Respondent could not have known of his particular hearing difficulties at the time and I find that this was a reasonable response to his request at that stage.
5.7 Thereafter, it is undisputed that the Complainant first notified the Respondent that his hearing aids were incompatible with the induction loop system in place in his letter dated 7th March 2013 as repeated in his letter dated 24th April 2013. There was a time lapse of some six weeks in responding to the Complainant’s request which was not ideal and the matter was not helped by the response to his parallel communication from the overseeing Body’s Customer Service and Information Unit. However, the letter of 29th April 2013 from the Respondent’s Secretary apologised for the delay and confirmed that it had asked the Department responsible for its budget to review that matter and was awaiting a response. In a further letter dated 1st May 2013, the Secretary confirmed that after consulting with the Department responsible for the budget and also with DeafHear, there was no alternative loop system for those without a t-switch on their hearing aids. However, two enhanced options were suggested as possible solutions, an FM system or loop receivers comprising of headphones which could be used with the existing induction loop system. Although the letter confirmed that the Department was not in a position to install an FM system due to the current economic climate, it confirmed that it would consider, depending on cost, purchasing a limited number of loop receivers as a possible solution.
5.8 However in his response of 3rd May 2013, the Complainant dismissed this option completely out of hand as being: “…a misrepresentation of the audio equipment that I requested.” and that he“…was requesting that a public address system (microphone/speakers) be installed in one of the rooms…., this system is widely used in the District, Circuit and High Courts and is considered best practice across Europe.” He also proffered this as a solution to meeting the varying needs of those who attend at the Forum. In response to follow up queries from the Complainant, the Respondent’s position thereafter was essentially that it did not have a budget to install such a system. In its response to the notification, the Respondent elaborated on its reasons for not being in a position to install a public address system and confirmed that loop receivers had been purchased to alleviate the Complainant’s particular difficulties and anyone similarly affected. In light of the Complainant’s entrenched position that only “a public address system” would suffice, I am satisfied that the level of consultation was adequate in the circumstances and it is difficult to see how any further engagement would have furthered matters.
5.9 I also take the view that to a large extent, the Complainant’s issues arose from his own lack of knowledge of his needs and consequent inability to communicate same. In particular, he was unaware that his hearing aids were incompatible with the induction loop system when he initially enquired about same. He also never notified the Respondent of his particular needs in advance of any of the hearings he was attending so they could not consult with him to make any necessary arrangements in advance. This might have included ensuring that the loop receivers were on hand during his latter attendances or exploring the possibility of setting up a mobile amplification system such as the one used at this hearing.
5.10 Having found that the level of consultation with the Complainant was adequate in these particular circumstances, I must now consider whether or not the provision of the loop receivers as a solution to the Complainant’s particular hearing difficulties constituted ‘reasonable accommodation’ within the meaning of the Acts and/or whether the Respondent should have acceded to his request to install a public address system. Within the context of Section 4 of the Acts, it is only open for me to consider the Complainant’s request for reasonable accommodation in terms of enabling him to access the service in question and not a generalised public need as alluded to in correspondence and at the hearing. I also have to determine the adequacy of the loop receivers provided in light of the test set out in Section 4(1) which provides: “…if without such special treatment or facilities it would be impossible or unduly difficult for the person to avail himself or herself of the service.” Additionally, I note that “the obligation to do all that is reasonable is objectively assessed. So while a complainant may not have been satisfied with the measures taken by the service provider, the Tribunal will independently evaluate whether those measures comply with Section 4.” (Judy Walsh Equal Status Acts 2000-2011 at P.220). The Complainant was clearly dissatisfied with the loop receivers as a solution to his difficulties. Having considered all of the evidence, I am satisfied that although not perfect, the loop receivers offered a reasonable solution to the Respondent’s particular hearing difficulties in the circumstances at the material time. In so finding, I accept the Respondent’s evidence that after consulting with DeafHear, they represented the best solution particularly as they could be used with the existing induction loop system. Although some feedback may have been experienced, no evidence was proffered on behalf of the Complainant that they did not serve the function in respect of which they were required. I have also considered his complaint that the headphones would draw undue attention to his disability which he considers a hidden disability. To some extent, drawing attention to a disability is an unavoidable consequence of requesting and availing of special facilities. To quote Mr Justice Hunt in relation to the obligations on a housing authority in the aforementioned case of Deans -v- City Council, “All that is commanded to be done by the Equality legislation is to devise a ‘reasonable’ solution to a problem, not to achieve perfection and to give in to every demand that is made of it…”. I also refer to Wellard -v- Tesco Ireland DEC-S2009-047 and C.R. -v- A Housing Authority DEC-S2012-005 in this regard. Having found that the loop receivers offered a reasonable solution to the Complainant’s specific hearing difficulties at the material time and would enable him to follow hearings, it is unnecessary to consider further whether a public address system represented more than a nominal cost to the Respondent.
5.11 The Complainant clearly holds very strong convictions in relation to access to services for people with disabilities and particularly for those who are deaf or hard of hearing which is very commendable. However, for the aforementioned reasons, I find that there was no failure on the part of the Respondent to provide him with reasonable accommodation in terms of accessing its services under the Acts.
5. DECISION
5.1 I have concluded my investigation of this complaint and based on the aforementioned, I find pursuant to Section 25(4) of the Acts, that the Complainant has not established facts from which a failure to provide reasonable accommodation may be inferred and therefore this complaint is not upheld.
5.2 Given the sensitivities in this case, I have exercised my discretion to anonymise this decision.
____________________
Aideen Collard
Adjudication / Equality Officer
18th April 2016