ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001050

Complaint for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 25/05/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 and following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Background

The Complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 9^th December 2015 alleging he had been discriminated against on the basis of his Gender and Race. The Complainant filed the ES 2 Form on the Respondent on 30^th October 2015 and the ES 3 Form was filed on 7^th December 2015.

Summary of Complainant’s Position.

The Complainant is an Asian Male person. He saw an advertisement for housing at a named address in Dublin. On 25^th October 2015 he applied in person with a reference and a cover letter. He was greeted by the Respondent and engaged in small talk. He stated he was wearing a bike helmet and glasses and it was dark thus he alleged the Respondent did not notice his race. On 27^th October 2015 he was invited back to meet the other housemates. However he alleged that when the Respondent noticed his race he became evasive and reneged on the offer of housing he alleged had been made to him. The Respondent stated he had to meet another candidate for the housing.

The Complainant was informed by text on 28^th October 2015 that the majority of the housemates had opted for another candidate. The Complainant alleged this was a lie as the Complainant had met the other two housemates (Named) who seemed to be indifferent. He stated he did not meet the third housemate. The Complainant provided the exchange of emails between himself and the Respondent which the Complainant stated clearly show that the Respondent denied him housing based on his gender and race. He stated that the other candidate who secured the housing was white and female.

Summary of Respondent’s Position.

The Respondent outlined the normal process for letting rooms at the named address. This vacancy is advertised on Daft and based on the number of enquiries a short list is drawn up following application to Daft via email. All candidates are invited on the same day for interview and to view the room. After the interviews all the housemates deliberate and make a collective decision to offer the room.

The Complainant applied via email but then presented at the house immediately after 11pm at night and delivered his written application. However the housemates all decided that the normal process should be adhered to. The Complainant did attend for interview on 27^th October 2015. The Complainant sent numerous emails seeking to know when he could move in. Copies provided.

The Respondent referred to a number of other complaints taken by the Complainant based on his race and these were identified at the Hearing.

The Respondent provided a list of the shortlisted candidates. The Respondent also provided a List of all the Tenants of the House from 2009 to 2016 broken down by gender and nationality – 36 in all.

The Respondent also confirmed at the Hearing that the current breakdown of the 4 occupants of the house are 2 Male and 2 Female with 1 of these (named) being Asian, 1 American (named) 1 Australian (named) and the former housemate was Turkish Male

Findings

Section 3 (1) (a) of the Act provides as follows: …..Discrimination shall be taken to occur where – (a) on any of the grounds specified….(in this case gender and race)…. A person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated.

Section 3 (2) provides that –As between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds…..are

(a)That one is a male and the other is female (the “gender ground”)

(h) That they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins (the “ground of race”).

Section 38 (a) of the Act provides “Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a person from which it may be presumed that prohibited conduct has occurred in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary”. Therefore the complainant must first establish a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment and it is only when a prima facie case has been established that the burden of proof shifts to the respondent to rebut the presumption of discrimination.

Both Parties confirmed at the Hearing that there are four housemates resident in the house. The Respondent provided a breakdown, both by race and gender, in relation to the occupants of the house at the time the room became available and the Complainant applied. The Complainant failed to provide any basis that he had been discriminated on the basis of his gender given that there were 2 males and 2 females in the house. The Complainant failed to provide any basis for his complaint that he was discriminated against on the basis of his race given that there an Asian, an American and an Australian resident in the house.

Decision

In accordance with Section 25 of the Act I decide that the Complainant has not established facts upon which it can be presumed that he was subject to discriminatory treatment on the basis of his gender and race. I decide the complaints are not well founded.

Date: 16^th August 2016