Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Wheelchair user

Retail store

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00007669-001

17/10/2016

The Complainant is a wheelchair user.   The Respondent is a large retail store.

The Complainant’s case is that he had shopped in the Respondents store for twenty years.  He asserted that the Respondent treated him unlawfully when on the 13^th August 2016 it:

(a) failed to provide reasonable accommodation for his disability; and

(b) discriminated against him in the provision of goods/services.

On the day in question 13^th of August 2016 he was shopping on his own and entered the shop in his wheelchair. He purchased his goods and placed them on his knees and while making his way to his car in the carpark, some of the goods slipped onto the ground and because he was in a wheelchair he couldn’t pick them up himself.

The Complainant felt that he did not receive any help from a lady who was sitting in a car nearby. Ultimately he was helped by another customer of the store.

The Complainant admitted that he was frustrated because his intention for going shopping had been slowed down.  He knocked on the lady’s car window to thank her for her help. She did not open the car window or door window and was not helpful towards him.

He noted that she was parked in a disabled space. He continued knocking on her window but his evidence was that he was not overtly forceful in doing so.  He stated he had never encountered this customer before and he knew nothing about her.

Finally he got into his own vehicle and preparing to go home when the security manager of the store came along and verbally attacked him.

The Complainant’s evidence was that the security manager was abusive towards him, wasn’t prepared to listen to his side of the story and was “shouting, ranting and raving”.

Two other staff from the store came to the scene.

Ultimately the Complainant was advised by the security manager that his shopping rights were withdrawn in the store.

He was very frustrated and annoyed with this. His view was that he had been indirectly discriminated against by the store because if he had been able bodied he wouldn’t have found himself in the situation and the frustration that he experienced.

The Complainant offered to apologise to the other shopper and he wished for his shopping rights to be restored.

The Complainant advised that he had a brain injury which resulted in him being in a wheelchair and this was responsible for some of his memory loss.

The Respondent denied that the Complainant was discriminated against, as alleged, or at all. The Respondent’s position was that the Complainant’s invitation to shop was withdrawn as a result of him having verbally abused and threatened to another store user on 13 August 2016.

The Respondent’s case is that there were eight disabled access spaces at the store and on the day in question only three spaces had been used out of those eight. The Complainant had no issue with accessing the store. The Respondent had CCTV evidence available for me to view that would show that the Complainant was only in the store for fifteen minutes.

CCTV evidence would also show the Complainant banging his keys off the window of the adjacent car owner and acting in a very threatening, aggressive and abusive manner. Inappropriate language was also shouted at the other store user.

The security manager gave evidence that he was called to the scene by the customer who was in the adjacent car and the subject of the abusive behaviour by the Complainant. She was an elderly lady in a hysterical state and begging him to help her.

He came out to the carpark to ask the Complainant why he was threatening this lady. The security manager advised the Complainant that he could not abuse customers in the manner in which he had and that the customer had a permit to park lawfully in the disabled user’s space.

The Complainant gesticulated with two fingers to the other shopper.

The security manager also gave evidence that there was a previous incident of inappropriate behaviour by the Complainant both in relation to other customers and staff.

He further gave evidence that on two occasions on the date of the incident he asked the Complainant to apologise to the other shopper and on the basis of same the invitation to no longer shop in the store would be withdrawn. This was not taken up by the Complainant.

He gave evidence that the Complainant drove around the car park, beeped the horn and shouted inappropriate language both at himself and the other shopper.

His evidence was that their decision to withdraw the invitation to shop in the store had nothing to do with the Complainant’s disability. It had to do with his unacceptable behaviour.

It was submitted that the Respondent would have made the decision regardless of whether or not the customer had the same disability as the Complainant, a different disability or no disability at all.

Based on the evidence before me, the Complainant has failed to establish a prima facia case of direct or indirect discrimination on the ground of disability in relation to the provision of goods/services by the Respondent and/or failure to provide reasonable accommodation for the Complainant’s disability.

I am satisfied the decision to withdraw the Complainant’s invitation to shop at the Respondent’s premises had nothing to do with his disability and was made solely on the basis of his abusive and threatening behaviour towards a fellow customer.

I find against the Complainant.

Discrimination invitation to shop withdrawn