EQUAL STATUS ACTS
DECISION NO. DEC-S2017-006
PARTIES
Parents
(on behalf of their son, a minor)
v
A Primary School
Represented by Mason, Hayes & Curran
File reference: Et-158987-es-15
Date of issue:8 February 2017
HEADNOTES: Equal Status Act – Discrimination in provision of services- Disability
1. DISPUTE
1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by Parents (on behalf of their son, a minor) that he was discriminated against by the respondent on the grounds of his disability contrary to section 3 of the Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2004 in relation to the provision of services in terms of section 5 of the Act.
1.2 The complainant referred a claim to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on August 21st, 2015 under the Equal Status Act. On 17 January 2017, in accordance with her powers under section 75 of the Employment Equality Acts, the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission delegated the case to me, Pat Brady, an Adjudication Officer/Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director General under Part VII of the Acts, on which date my investigation commenced.
1.3 Submissions were received from both sides. In accordance with Section 25 (4) of the Equal Status Acts and as part of my investigation I proceeded to a hearing on January 24th 2017.
1.4 This decision is issued by me following the establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on 1 October 2015, as an Adjudication Officer who was an Equality Officer prior to 1 October 2015, in accordance with section 83 (3) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015.
COMPLAINANT’S SUBMISSION
2.1 There is a considerable background to the case which is not directly relevant to the matter for adjudication in this case.
2.2 The young person at the heart of the matter, had been a pupil at the school but had been withdrawn as a result of difficulties between the parties.
2.3 In due course the Principal of the school sought information on psychological tests that had been undertaken on AOC. His stated basis for doing so was the fact that they had been conducted on the school premises, facilitated and assisted by members of the school staff and that it was normal for the school to receive such reports. The complainant’s hotly disputed his rights to even seek the reports and in any event he did not get them.
RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSION
3.1 The respondent says that no prima facie case arose as there had been no discriminatory act. The complainant refers to the most recent incident of discrimination as being the notification to her that the Principal had sought the information. The respondent does not dispute that he did so although it apologised for the actions of the Principal which the Board of Management had not authorised.
3.2 The Principal did not succeed at any time in getting the files that he sought.
3.3 In relation to the alleged act of discrimination on the disability ground the respondent reviewed the relevant sections of the Act(sections 3 (1) which defines discrimination, and section 4 which deals with disability and submitted that the complainant was not receiving or seeking a service from the respondent.
3.4 The respondent acknowledges the complainants’ annoyance at the Principal’s attempts to get the information but submitted that the mere requesting of the information does not amount to discrimination for the purpose of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2012.
3.5 Likewise, there was no basis to support a case of ‘less favourable treatment’ which is a requirement for a complaint to be well founded and submitted legal argument on the requirement to establish a prima facie case.
3.6 The was summarised as falling under three tests;
3.6.1 Is the complainant covered by a discriminatory ground
3.6.2 Is there evidence of specific treatment by the Respondent of the complainant relied upon,
3.6.3 What evidence is there that the treatment complained of was less favourable than the treatment of someone not covered by the same ground and in similar circumstances
3.7 The respondent submitted that the complainant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination, or any case of less favourable treatment on the disability ground by reference to any of these tests.
CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS
4.1 As noted above, the complaint in this case was a follow on from previous and harrowing difficulties between the parties and this backdrop appears to have been a major factor leading to the submission of the complaint.
4.2 However, the matter has to be considered strictly on the basis of the Equal Status Acts and I could find no basis on which the respondent was engaged in the provision of a service such as is defined in section 2(1) of the Equal Status Act.
4.3 Even if it could be, there was no discernible act of discrimination of any description, and nothing to fall within the disability ground.
4.4 The complaint must therefore be viewed as misconceived and no prima facie case arises.
DECISION
5.1 In accordance with Section 25 (4) of the Equal Status Acts I conclude this investigation and issue the following decision.
That the complainants have failed to establish a case and this complaint fails.
5.2 Accordingly I dismiss the complaint.
__________________
Pat Brady
Adjudication Officer
8 February 2017