Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00014714-001

01/10/2017

This case pertains to the claimant’s allegation that he was discriminated against (on the grounds of religion) under the Equal Status Acts 2000-2011. The alleged discrimination arose from the claimant’s (rejected) application for funding in respect of a court case he intends to pursue. He alleges that ‘the first result returned to a Google search of my name and location’ threw up a ‘wholly untrue statement’. The claimant records that the statement read: ‘Mark Savage North county Dublins (sic) homophobic candidate’. This categorisation was selected as the claimant contends that at the time of the application Mr. Savage was a ‘Roman Catholic, Christian’. In an attempt to secure justice - the claimant wished to restore his good name - he applied to the Dept. of Social Protection for the funding of his legal fees under the Department’s ‘Exceptional Needs Payments’ scheme. On April 10th, 2017 the respondent wrote to the complainant advising that it ‘has no scheme under which legal expenses can be paid’. Accordingly, the claimant initiated this action, on the grounds that he had been discriminated against on the grounds of religion.

The complainant’s case is that he was discriminated against (on the grounds of religion) by a Government department under the Equal Status Acts 2000-2011. The alleged discrimination arose from the claimant’s (rejected) application for funding in respect of a court case he intends to pursue. He alleges that ‘the first result returned to a Google search of my name and location’ threw up a ‘wholly untrue statement’. The claimant records that the statement read: ‘Mark Savage North county Dublins (sic) homophobic candidate’. This ‘religion’ categorisation was selected as the claimant contends that the at the time of the application Mr. Savage was a ‘Roman Catholic, Christian’. In an attempt to secure justice - the claimant wished to restore his good name - he applied to the Dept. of Social Protection for the funding of his legal fees under the Department’s Exceptional Needs Payments scheme. On April 10th, 2017 the respondent wrote to the complainant advising that it ‘has no scheme under which legal expenses can be paid’. Accordingly, the claimant initiated this action, on the grounds that he had been discriminated against on the grounds of religion. Related thereto, the claimant notes that that respondent ‘no longer makes exceptional needs payments for reasons such as religious ceremonies, such as baptisms, communion and confirmations (ceremonies part of which are of the religion I hold)’.

In the opinion of the respondent, the complainant’s claim is entirely misconceived, as the issues complained about do not constitute a valid claim under the Acts. Accordingly, the respondent requests the Director/Adjudication Officer to dismiss the claim pursuant to Section 22 of the Acts.

Notably, the Complainant has not submitted what his religious belief, religious background or outlook is to maintain his claim. Nor has he nominated a comparator - which is a requirement under the Acts. Accordingly, the complainant does not meet the burden of proof and his claim must therefore fail. That is, the respondent did not treat the complainant less favourably on the religious ground, there was no discrimination and the complainant’s claim against the respondent does not constitute discrimination within the meaning of the Acts.

The complainant alleges that he has been discriminated against by the respondent on the grounds of religion in contravention of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2011. By email dated the 29th March 2017 the complainant wrote to the then Minister of the Department of Social Protection, Leo Varadkar T.D. requesting that the Minister ‘order the DSP to fund my obtaining professional legal representation in these ongoing legal matters I am experiencing and which I have outlined to you in this email’.On the 10th April 2017 the Minister responded that he: ‘does not fund the legal expenses of persons in the circumstances that you have described in your email. Furthermore, the Department of Social Protection has no scheme under which legal expenses can be paid.’ On the 7th June 2015 the Complainant submitted an ES.1 Form to the respondent, claiming that he has been discriminated against (on religious grounds) because of the refusal to fund his legal expenses.

In the respondent’s reply (dated the 30th June 2017) it was (again) explained that the respondent does not assist with such costs. Accordingly, it can legitimately be argued that complainant’s claim of discrimination on the ground of religion is somewhat misconceived.

Notably, Section 3 (1) of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2011 defines ‘discrimination’ as occurring:

‘(a) Where a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as the ‘discriminatory grounds’) which exists, existed but no longer exists, may exist in the future, or is imputed to the person concerned…’

Accordingly, it is somewhat unclear as to what acts of discrimination the complainant is alleging, as the points raised do not constitute discrimination in accordance with the definition under the Acts. Furthermore, in circumstances where the respondent does not fund legal representation to members of the public and does not operate a scheme which provides this service, the claim of discrimination is difficult to substantiate. Furthermore, the complainant has not provided a comparator.

It is also pertinent that when one brings a claim under the Equal Status Acts, one must establish facts from which discrimination may be inferred (known as a ‘prima facie’ case). Should one successfully establish this, the onus shifts to the service provider to prove that there was no discrimination. This means that one must outline the basic facts of the case and show that these facts are of sufficient significance to suggest that discrimination has taken place. Once a ‘prima facie’ case has been established, the service provider must demonstrate that there was no discrimination or that if there was discrimination, it was justified. Related thereto, Section 38A (1) of the Acts sets out the burden of proof which provides that: ‘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.’ The complainant’s complaint does not meet the burden of proof requirement under the Acts.

For the aforesaid reasons, I find this complaint is not well-founded and conclude that the complainant was not discriminated against by the respondent.

Equal Status; Discrimination; Religion.