Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mark Savage

Seetec Employment And Skills Ireland Designated Activity Company

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000

CA-00008093-001

10/11/2016

The Complainant alleged that he was discriminated against under Section 21 of the Equal Status Act by being treated less favourably than someone else would have been treated on the ground of religion and by being treated unlawfully by being discriminated against in the provision of goods and services.

The Complainant’s Curriculum Vitae had been submitted for a vacancy with a healthcare company. In the ‘Key Achievements’ section the following text is included (in bullet point form):

“Standing up for and defending my Religious Beliefs which include that Abortion on demand is Evil and Homosexuality is an intrinsic disorder inclined towards Evil”.

The Complainant stated that on the 11^th May 2016 his Employment Advisor, having read the above wording on his Curriculum Vitae, said: “You can’t say that, employers are biased”, which is when he alleged the discrimination occurred.  

He added that it is immaterial if the comment was only intended to advise him that the wording was detrimental to his prospects of getting an interview. He stated he is proud of his achievements and being told that he could not include them on his CV caused him emotional upset and distress.

At the hearing the Complainant contended that if an individual with a LGBT background listed as a key achievement on their Curriculum Vitae that they had campaigned for a Yes vote in the Gay Marriage referendum, or someone with a disability stated that they had campaigned vigorously for improved services for wheelchair users, then in all probability, the employment advisor would not have cautioned such a person in the same way.

Therefore, the Complainant believes that notwithstanding the fact that the Employment Advisor had a valid concern that the wording in the Key Achievements section of the Curriculum Vitae would diminish his employment prospects, he would not say the same thing to a comparator and therefore he was discriminated against because of his religious beliefs and the advisor’s employer is vicariously liable.

On the 11^th May 2016 the Employment Advisor had a general discussion with the Complainant about an organisations website, in which they stated that they were an equal opportunities employer who supported diversity. The Respondent stated that the Complainant questioned the legality of such a statement in Irish law.

The Respondent (Employment Advisor) stated that the discussion then focused on the text included in the Key Achievements section of the Complainant’s Curriculum Vitae. The Employment Advisor asked the Complainant why he had included it, telling him that as not all employers would share his views (on abortion and homosexuality) and this might influence their decision whether to invite him for interview. He stated that on the day in question the Complainant said he had no issues with him personally, but with his employer.

The Respondent’s Operations Director explained that it is their function to advise clients on the format and content of their Curriculum Vitae, to enhance their prospects of obtaining interviews and employment. He stated that at no stage did the Employment Advisor ask that the Complainant to remove the text or wording but proffered his opinion that the content of the Key Achievements section would diminish his employment prospects.

The Respondent stated that their employees do not make judgements regarding the views or beliefs of any of its clients, but that they are respected. However, they would be negligent in their duties if they did not provide professional opinion or advice to enhance their client’s prospects of gaining employment. The Respondent stated that they were unaware of the Complainant’s religious beliefs and they were of no relevance to the service they provided; the Employment Advisor had acted impartially and was not biased in any way.

The Respondent stated that the evidence shows that the wording used on the Complainant’s Curriculum Vitae goes beyond an expression of his religious beliefs.   Furthermore, they alleged that at a review meeting between the Complainant and the Employment Advisor in December 2016 the Complainant expressed his opinion that homosexuality is an intrinsic disorder inclined towards evil and Gay people are an abomination of nature.

The Respondent concluded by saying that the Complainant is unable to make a prima facie case that discrimination took place and has not linked any of the points he raises to the alleged religious discrimination.

At the hearing the Complainant referred to the determination in Mitchell v Southern Health Board in support of his case. The test formulated in this case indicates that a Complainant bears the onus of proving facts from which discrimination can be inferred. If that onus is discharged, the Respondent bears the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that there has been no infringement of the principle of equal treatment. The conclusion that there was discrimination need not be the only or most likely inference to be drawn, but it is sufficient that it is within a range of reasonable inferences.

The Complainant believes that when the Employer Advisor allegedly told him, “you can’t say that, employers are biased”, this comment was of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination.

The Respondent does not accept that the Employment Advisor used these words, and submitted that the advice given was constructive in nature, made without partiality or bias and was solely job related.

Having taken account of the submissions, written and oral, made by the parties, I find that the Complainant has not proved primary facts of sufficient significance to raise the inference of discrimination. The evidence does not support the contention that the Complainant was treated differently or less favourably on the grounds of religion and as the Complainant does not discharge the initial probative burden which he bears, his case cannot succeed.

I find that the Complainant was not discriminated against by the Respondent on grounds of religion and was not treated unlawfully by being discriminated against in the provision of goods/services under Section 21 of the Equal Status Act, 2000.