EQUAL STATUS ACTS 2000-2016
Decision DEC – S2018 – 015
PARTIES
Mr Rajasimha Rothschild Marudura
and
National College of Ireland and two named staff members (represented by Ms Christina Ryan, B.L., instructed by Ivor Fitzpatrick, Solicitors)
File References: et-155799-es-15
et-155800-es-15
et-155801-es-15
Date of Issue: 14th June 2018
Keywords: discrimination – race – victimisation – no show – no prima facie case.
1. Claims
1.1 The cases concern claims by Mr Rajasimha Rothschild Marudura, that the National College of Ireland and two named staff members, discriminated against him on the grounds of race and victimisation contrary to Sections 3(2)(h) and (j) of the Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2011, in terms of class participation, details of an assessment process, and his suspension from the respondent college which he considers an act of victimisation within the meaning of the Acts. The complainant also complains of lack of reasonable accommodation, even though he has not brought a complaint of discrimination on the ground of disability.
The complainant referred three separate complaints under the Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2011 to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 6 May 2015. Submissions in respect of all complaints were received from the complainant on 17 November 2015. A submission was received from the respondent on 5 February 2016. On 5 October 2017, in accordance with her powers under S. 25 of the Acts, the Director General delegated the case to me, Stephen Bonnlander, an Equality Officer/Adjudication Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part III of the Acts. On this date my investigation commenced. As required by Section 25(1) of the Acts and as part of my investigation, I proceeded to hold a joint hearing of the case on 13 June 2018, after several adjournments which had been granted to the complainant. The last of these adjournments was relatively short, having regard to the overall length of time it had taken to bring the complaints to hearing, and also due to some doubts which had arisen in my mind as to how the complainant approached his adjournment requests. All correspondence with the complainant, at his request, took place via email, and these views, along with the hearing date, were communicated to him on Monday 14 May 2018, at 17:11 BST, to two email addresses which he had provided and from which he had communicated with the Commission only days earlier. No emailed communications were received from the complainant in response to this. On the day of the hearing, the respondent and its witnesses were in attendance, but the complainant was not. Neither did the complainant make contact in the 24 hours following the hearing.
2. Decision
1.2 This decision is issued by me following the establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission 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.
In the light of the foregoing, and in accordance with Section 25(4) of the Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2015, I issue the following decision: As part of my investigation under Section 25 of the Act, I am obliged to hold a hearing into the matter. I find that the complainant’s failure to attend such a hearing was unreasonable in the circumstances and that any obligation under Section 25 has ceased. As no evidence was given at the hearing in support of the allegations of discrimination, harassment and victimisation I conclude the investigation of this complaint and find against the complainant
______________________
Stephen Bonnlander
Equality Officer/Adjudication Officer
14 June 2018