Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Jason Wynne

Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses

Representatives

Britain Branch of Jehovah’s Witnesses

Act

Complaint/.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00017297-001

06/02/2018

The complainant claims that he was discriminated against in provision of service when he was refused entry into an assembly of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and submits, he was refused entry on religious grounds.

The complainant submitted that he wished to amend the name of the respondent which he had detailed on his original complaint form. The respondent objected to the complainant’s proposed amendment and advised that the respondent should be named differently to that which the complainant had detailed both on the complaint form and different to the name the complainant suggested on the day of the hearing. The complainant did not agree to the respondent’s suggested change.

The complainant advised that his religion is a Jehovah Witness as he was baptised into that religion and that he reads the Jehovah Witness literature and leads his life in the moral guidance of the Jehovah Witness faith but that he has been disfellowedshipped since around 2001 by the respondent and does not know the reason why. He detailed that disfellowshipped did not mean he was no longer a Jehovah Witness as one cannot be un-baptised.

It was outlined that as someone like him who is disfellowedshipped, is allowed to attend Jehovah’s Witnesses assemblies, but is not allowed to talk to any members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. He has in effect been told that he is ‘shunned’ and only ‘elders’ are authorised to talk to him. It upsets him greatly that some of his immediate family members are no longer allowed to talk to him and one of the reasons he attends events, such as the assembly that he sought access to in 2017, is to see some of his immediate family members.

The complainant gave evidence that even where people are disfellowedshipped, they still may be allowed entry into an assembly such as the one the complainant attempted to attend on 11th November 2017 as it is public event. On that occasion he was refused access on the basis that his licence to attend was revoked. When he arrived that morning around 10:30 he saw the doors were closed and a sign up said “private event”. He wondered why it was private and saw Mr A blocking the door with 10/12 other men with him. Mr A advised him that his implied invitation was revoked and the complainant believes that he was refused entry because he had gone public with what he regarded as a cover up of child sexual abuse within the respondent’s religious organisation. The complainant felt threatened by the large number of people who surrounded him and left when the manager of the premises asked him to leave. He was shocked at the manner in which the respondent dealt with his attempt to gain access as he has attended assemblies before.

The complainant advised that there are a number of reasons he attends these events including to hear the religious talks, see the baptisms and also to improve the respondent’s child abuse policies and while he is shunned and can only speak with elders about this, he hopes that by speaking with elders he can implement change.   An ES1 form was sent on 6th December 2017 and he received an ES2 form on 5th January 2018.   His claim was submitted to the WRC on 6th February 2018.

The complainant detailed that at other assemblies that he attended previously he would has felt people staring at him as he has spent considerable time and effort attempting to highlight the issue of child abuse. The complainant outlined that he is extremely passionate about ensuring that the issues of child abuse is dealt with appropriately by his religious group and does not feel it has been dealt with appropriately to date by the respondent. The complainant outlined that he had no intention of being disruptive at the events such as the one that he attended in November 2017. He detailed that often at such events he would approach the elders regarding questions he has as he recognises that other members are not allowed to talk to him and did not want to cause trouble for them or make them uncomfortable.

It was detailed that the complainant believes that he is being tracked by the respondent for his role in investigating how child sexual abuse has been handled by the religious organisation and for having set up a website so that others can see what he has discovered arising from his allegations of the failure of the Jehovah Witness organization to deal with child sexual abuse allegations appropriately. It was further put forward that the respondent also refused entry to him in November 2017 because he contributed to an article in a newspaper on 29th October 2017 about child sexual abuse.

The complainant disputed the respondent’s claim that the service came within section 5(2)(e) of the act and set out that the respondent has misinterpreted the intent of Section 5(2)(e) of the Equal Status Act 2000 and details the intent is to ensure that religions are permitted to perform their religious rites in a manner they see fit.

The respondent refuted the claim and disputed the name of the respondent which had been put forward by the complainant. The respondent objected to the complainant’s proposed amendment and advised that the respondent should be named differently to that which the complainant had detailed both on the complaint form and differently to the name the complainant suggested on the day of the hearing. The complainant did not agree to the respondent’s suggested change to the name of the respondent.

It was disputed by the respondent that the ‘service’ sought by the complainant comes within the meaning of “services” for the purposes of the section 5(1) of the 2000 Act and that section 5(2)(e) of the 2000 Act specifically allows “differences in the treatment of [a] person on the religion ground in relation to goods or services provided for a religious purpose”.

It was detailed by the respondent that the complainant did not establish a prima facia case of discrimination. The respondent outlined that the complainant had a number of issues with the respondent, some of which were unrelated to his claim and that he should be reminded of the reason that the hearing was taking place was owing to his specific complaint under the Equal Status Act.

The respondent confirmed that the complainant had been refused entry on 11 November 2017 but this was related to previous disruptions that he caused.

It was outlined that the religious event of 11 November 2017 occurs approximately twice a year and is open to the congregation and others who might be invited and that attendees do not need to be a Jehovah Witness to attend.   There are people of different ages and race including children in attendance. In response to the notice detailing that the event was private, the respondent was not sure why such a notice appeared as it is a public religious event.

Evidence of Mr A

He advised that he is an elder and was asked to be an attendant at the main door and that he had received notice that the complainant would be in attendance and that the complainant might cause a disruption. Mr A advised that when the complainant tried to enter the premises, Mr A informed the complainant that his invitation was revoked. Mr A detailed that he knew that the complainant had spoken “out of turn” at a previous event and he believed he made people uncomfortable by his presence. Mr A confirmed that he knew that the complainant had been removed from the “religion” and that this had been announced publicly. It was detailed by Mr A that he had never removed somebody’s invitation to attend such an event prior to this.

Evidence of Mr B

Mr B advised that he is an elder and confirmed that he was in attendance and advised that he saw what he regarded as the disruptive behaviour of the complainant.   He had previously witnessed the complainant’s disruptive behaviour at an event in April 2017. At this previous event Mr B advised that he had approached the complaint asking him not to cease his outbursts. Mr B advised that the complainant turned up to the event with a rucksack and that this was unusual and normally people attend the event with briefcases. Mr B gave evidence that he had been told that morning that the complainant would be attending and had planned a protest and that Mr B’s role includes reaching out to individuals such as the complainant after they have been disfellowshipped. He advised that he had met with the complainant previously which had been a positive meeting,

Evidence of Mr C

Mr C detailed that he is an elder who attended the assembly on 11 November 2017. On a previous occasion, he had observed the complainant and thought the complainant seemed agitated with much shaking of his head in response to what he was hearing at the assembly. Mr C had been advised on the morning of November 11 that the complainant was planning something. It was submitted by Mr C that in his opinion the complainant was no longer a Jehovah Witness.

The complainant has submitted that he was discriminated against on religious grounds when he was refused access to a religious event organised by the respondent.   The respondent refuted the claim and raised some preliminary issues.

Preliminary Issue #1

The complainant wished to the amend the name of the respondent. The respondent objected to the complainant’s request and detailed that a different name should be used. I note the complainant submitted what he regarded as the name of respondent on his ES1 form which the respondent responded to without raising any objection at the time and the complainant never requested a change to the name of the respondent prior to the hearing. Having heard the evidence of both parties, I determine that the name of the respondent should remain as detailed on the original complaint form.

Preliminary Issue #2

The respondent set out that the complainant sought access to a religious assembly of Jehovah’s Witnesses, where Jehovah’s Witnesses and interested members of the public gather together for religious worship. It was set out that as such services are for a ‘religious purpose’ and section 5(2)(e) of the 2000 Act specifically allows

“differences in the treatment of [a] person on the religion ground in relation to goods or services provided for a religious purpose” such that, the complaint was not covered under the Equal Status Act.   The complainant details that the respondent has misinterpreted the intent of Section 5(2)(e) of the Equal Status Act 2000 and sets out the intent is to ensure that religions are permitted to perform their religious rites in a manner they see fit.

Section 2 (1) sets out that “provision of services, property and other opportunities to which the public generally or a section of the public has access”…

“means a service or facility of any nature which is available to the public generally or a section of the public, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, includes—

( a) access to and the use of any place,

( b) facilities for—

(i) banking, insurance, grants, loans, credit or financing,

(ii) entertainment, recreation or refreshment,

(iii) cultural activities, or

(iv) transport or travel,

( c) a service or facility provided by a club (whether or not it is a club holding a certificate of registration under the Registration of Clubs Acts, 1904 to 1999) which is available to the public generally or a section of the public, whether on payment or without payment, and

( d) a professional or trade service,

but does not include pension rights (within the meaning of the Employment Equality Act, 1998) or a service or facility in relation to which that Act applies;”

Section 5 sets out also that in the disposal of goods and provision of services.

“5.—(1) A person shall not discriminate in disposing of goods to the public generally or a section of the public or in providing a service, whether the disposal or provision is for consideration or otherwise and whether the service provided can be availed of only by a section of the public.

(2) Subject to subsections (4) and (4A) , subsection (1) shall not apply in respect of

(e) differences in the treatment of person on the religion ground in relation to goods or services provided for a religious purpose,

The complainant set out that the respondent has misinterpreted the intent of Section 5(2)(e) of the Equal Status Act 2000 and details the intent of this section is to ensure that religions are permitted to perform their religious rites in a manner they see fit.

In McGrath v McDermott [1988] IR258, Finlay CJ detailed that “the courts have not got a function to add to or to leave from express statutory provisions so as to achieve the objectives which the Court may seem desirable”. 

Goulding Chemicals Ltd v Bolger [1977] IR211 detailsthat “it is to be presumed that words are not used in a statute without a meaning and accordingly, effect must be given, if possible to all the words used for, as has been said, the legislature is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything in vain”.

It was very evident that the complainant is passionate in his advocacy of what he alleges is a cover up of child sexual abuse within his religion. The complainant was also very specific that his complaint was that he was treated differently on religious grounds when attempting to access a service with a religious purpose. This is clearly set out as one of the exceptions listed in section 5(2) of the Equal Status Act 2000 and I therefore, do not find in favour of the complainant.

For the reasons set out above, I do not find in favour of the complainant.

Religion, discrimination, equal status

Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Jason  Wynne

Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Jason Wynne

Kingdom Hall Of Jehovah's Witnesses

Representatives

Britain Branch of Jehovah’s Witnesses

Act

Complaint/.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00017297-001

06/02/2018

The complainant claims that he was discriminated against in provision of service when he was refused entry into an assembly of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and submits, he was refused entry on religious grounds.

The complainant submitted that he wished to amend the name of the respondent which he had detailed on his original complaint form.  The respondent objected to the complainant’s proposed amendment and advised that the respondent should be named differently to that which the complainant had detailed both on the complaint form and different to the name the complainant suggested on the day of the hearing.  The complainant did not agree to the respondent’s suggested change.

The complainant advised that his religion is a Jehovah Witness as he was baptised into that religion and that he reads the Jehovah Witness literature and leads his life in the moral guidance of the Jehovah Witness faith but that he has been disfellowedshipped since around 2001 by the respondent and does not know the reason why.  He detailed that disfellowshipped did not mean he was no longer a Jehovah Witness as one cannot be un-baptised.

It was outlined that as someone like him who is disfellowedshipped, is allowed to attend Jehovah’s Witnesses assemblies, but is not allowed to talk to any members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.  He has in effect been told that he is ‘shunned’ and only ‘elders’ are authorised to talk to him.  It upsets him greatly that some of his immediate family members are no longer allowed to talk to him and one of the reasons he attends events, such as the assembly that he sought access to in 2017, is to see some of his immediate family members.

The complainant gave evidence that even where people are disfellowedshipped, they still may be allowed entry into an assembly such as the one the complainant attempted to attend on 11^th November 2017 as it is public event.  On that occasion he was refused access on the basis that his licence to attend was revoked.  When he arrived that morning around 10:30 he saw the doors were closed and a sign up said “private event”.  He wondered why it was private and saw Mr A blocking the door with 10/12 other men with him.  Mr A advised him that his implied invitation was revoked and the complainant believes that he was refused entry because he had gone public with what he regarded as a cover up of child sexual abuse within the respondent’s religious organisation.  The complainant felt threatened by the large number of people who surrounded him and left when the manager of the premises asked him to leave.  He was shocked at the manner in which the respondent dealt with his attempt to gain access as he has attended assemblies before.

The complainant advised that there are a number of reasons he attends these events including to hear the religious talks, see the baptisms and also to improve the respondent’s child abuse policies and while he is shunned and can only speak with elders about this, he hopes that by speaking with elders he can implement change.  An ES1 form was sent on 6^th December 2017 and he received an ES2 form on 5^th January 2018.  His claim was submitted to the WRC on 6^th February 2018.

The complainant detailed that at other assemblies that he attended previously he would has felt people staring at him as he has spent considerable time and effort attempting to highlight the issue of child abuse.  The complainant outlined that he is extremely passionate about ensuring that the issues of child abuse is dealt with appropriately by his religious group and does not feel it has been dealt with appropriately to date by the respondent.  The complainant outlined that he had no intention of being disruptive at the events such as the one that he attended in November 2017.  He detailed that often at such events he would approach the elders regarding questions he has as he recognises that other members are not allowed to talk to him and did not want to cause trouble for them or make them uncomfortable.

It was detailed that the complainant believes that he is being tracked by the respondent for his role in investigating how child sexual abuse has been handled by the religious organisation and for having set up a website so that others can see what he has discovered arising from his allegations of the failure of the Jehovah Witness organization to deal with child sexual abuse allegations appropriately.  It was further put forward that the respondent also refused entry to him in November 2017 because he contributed to an article in a newspaper in July 2017 about child sexual abuse.

The complainant disputed the respondent’s claim that the service came within section 5(2)(e) of the act and set out that the respondent has misinterpreted the intent of Section 5(2)(e) of the Equal Status Act 2000 and details the intent is to ensure that religions are permitted to perform their religious rites in a manner they see fit.

The respondent refuted the claim and disputed the name of the respondent which had been put forward by the complainant.  The respondent objected to the complainant’s proposed amendment and advised that the respondent should be named differently to that which the complainant had detailed both on the complaint form and differently to the name the complainant suggested on the day of the hearing.  The complainant did not agree to the respondent’s suggested change to the name of the respondent.

It was disputed by the respondent that the ‘service’ sought by the complainant comes within the meaning of “services” for the purposes of the section 5(1) of the 2000 Act and that section 5(2)(e) of the 2000 Act specifically allows “differences in the treatment of [a] person on the religion ground in relation to goods or services provided for a religious purpose”.

It was detailed by the respondent that the complainant did not establish a prima facia case of discrimination.  The respondent outlined that the complainant had a number of issues with the respondent, some of which were unrelated to his claim and that he should be reminded of the reason that the hearing was taking place was owing to his specific complaint under the Equal Status Act.

The respondent confirmed that the complainant had been refused entry on 11 November 2017 but this was related to previous disruptions that he caused.

It was outlined that the religious event of 11 November 2017 occurs approximately twice a year and is open to the congregation and others who might be invited and that attendees do not need to be a Jehovah Witness to attend.  There are people of different ages and race including children in attendance.  In response to the notice detailing that the event was private, the respondent was not sure why such a notice appeared as it is a public religious event. 

Evidence of Mr A

He advised that he is an elder and was asked to be an attendant at the main door and that he had received notice that the complainant would be in attendance and that the complainant might cause a disruption.  Mr A advised that when the complainant tried to enter the premises, Mr A informed the complainant that his invitation was revoked.  Mr A detailed that he knew that the complainant had spoken “out of turn” at a previous event and he believed he made people uncomfortable by his presence.  Mr A confirmed that he knew that the complainant had been removed from the “religion” and that this had been announced publicly.  It was detailed by Mr A that he had never removed somebody’s invitation to attend such an event prior to this.

Evidence of Mr B

Mr B advised that he is an elder and confirmed that he was in attendance and advised that he saw what he regarded as the disruptive behaviour of the complainant.  He had previously witnessed the complainant’s disruptive behaviour at an event in April 2017.  At this previous event Mr B advised that he had approached the complaint asking him not to cease his outbursts.  Mr B advised that the complainant turned up to the event with a rucksack and that this was unusual and normally people attend the event with briefcases.  Mr B gave evidence that he had been told that morning that the complainant would be attending and had planned a protest and that Mr B’s role includes reaching out to individuals such as the complainant after they have been disfellowshipped.  He advised that he had met with the complainant previously which had been a positive meeting,

Evidence of Mr C

Mr C detailed that he is an elder who attended the assembly  on 11 November 2017.  On a previous occasion, he had observed the complainant and thought the complainant seemed agitated with much shaking of his head in response to what he was hearing at the assembly.  Mr C had been advised on the morning of November 11 that the complainant was planning something.  It was submitted by Mr C that in his opinion the complainant was no longer a  Jehovah Witness.

The complainant has submitted that he was discriminated against on religious grounds when he was refused access to a religious event organised by the respondent.  The respondent refuted the claim and raised some preliminary issues.

Preliminary Issue #1

The complainant wished to the amend the name of the respondent.  The respondent objected to the complainant’s request and detailed that a different name should be used.  I note the complainant submitted what he regarded as the name of respondent on his ES1 form which the respondent responded to without raising any objection at the time and the complainant never requested a change to the name of the respondent prior to the hearing.  Having heard the evidence of both parties, I determine that the name of the respondent should remain as detailed on the original complaint form.

Preliminary Issue #2

The respondent set out that the complainant sought access to a religious assembly of Jehovah’s Witnesses, where Jehovah’s Witnesses and interested members of the public gather together for religious worship. It was set out that as such services are for a ‘religious purpose’ and section 5(2)(e) of the 2000 Act specifically allows

“differences in the treatment of [a] person on the religion ground in relation to goods or services provided for a religious purpose” such that, the complaint was not covered under the Equal Status Act.  The complainant details that the respondent has misinterpreted the intent of Section 5(2)(e) of the Equal Status Act 2000 and sets out the intent is to ensure that religions are permitted to perform their religious rites in a manner they see fit.

Section 2 (1) sets out that “provision of services, property and other opportunities to which the public generally or a section of the public has access”…

“means a service or facility of any nature which is available to the public generally or a section of the public, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, includes—

( a) access to and the use of any place,

( b) facilities for—

(i) banking, insurance, grants, loans, credit or financing,

(ii) entertainment, recreation or refreshment,

(iii) cultural activities, or

(iv) transport or travel,

( c) a service or facility provided by a club (whether or not it is a club holding a certificate of registration under the Registration of Clubs Acts, 1904 to 1999) which is available to the public generally or a section of the public, whether on payment or without payment, and

( d) a professional or trade service,

but does not include pension rights (within the meaning of the Employment Equality Act, 1998) or a service or facility in relation to which that Act applies;”

Section 5 sets out also that in the disposal of goods and provision of services.

“5.—(1) A person shall not discriminate in disposing of goods to the public generally or a section of the public or in providing a service, whether the disposal or provision is for consideration or otherwise and whether the service provided can be availed of only by a section of the public.

(2) Subject to subsections (4) and (4A) , subsection (1) shall not apply in respect of

(e) differences in the treatment of person on the religion ground in relation to goods or services provided for a religious purpose,

The complainant set out that the respondent has misinterpreted the intent of Section 5(2)(e) of the Equal Status Act 2000 and details the intent of this section is to ensure that religions are permitted to perform their religious rites in a manner they see fit. 

In McGrath v McDermott [1988] IR258, Finlay CJ detailed that “the courts have not got a function to add to or to leave from express statutory provisions so as to achieve the objectives which the Court may seem desirable”. 

Goulding Chemicals Ltd v Bolger [1977] IR211 detailsthat “it is to be presumed that words are not used in a statute without a meaning and accordingly, effect must be given, if possible to all the words used for, as has been said, the legislature is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything in vain”.

It was very evident that the complainant is passionate in his advocacy of what he alleges is a cover up of child sexual abuse within his religion.  The complainant was also very specific that his complaint was that he was treated differently on religious grounds when attempting to access a service with a religious purpose.  This is clearly set out as one of the exceptions listed in section 5(2) of the Equal Status Act 2000 and I therefore, do not find in favour of the complainant.

For the reasons set out above, I do not find in favour of the complainant.

Religion, discrimination, equal status