Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{A Complainant}

{A Legal Services Provider}

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00006348-001

28/07/2016

The Complainant is estranged from his wife. The Complainant’s estranged wife is represented by the Respondent in family law proceedings.

The Complainant sent a Form ES1 notification of this complaint to the Respondent on 3rd July 2016 and 19 July 2016. His complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 28th July 2016.

The Complainant claims that he has been discriminated against, harassed, allowed to be harassed and victimised on the grounds of race by the Respondent. He objects to the manner of defence of the family law proceedings by the Respondent acting on behalf of his estranged wife.

The Complainant has profound concern with emails sent to him by the Respondent on the eve of a Court hearing on 9th June 2016, that he was not given an appropriate and equal opportunity to vet documentation provided. He claims that the Respondent harassed him by ambushing him on 7th and 8th June 2016 with 2 sets of correspondence which the Respondent asserted had sent to him by certified post on 7 and 8th June 2016. He claims that these were consciously addressed to another person by name which protracted the case and increased the costs and burden. He alleges the letter issued on 8th June 2016 significantly varies from the usual correspondence as it is not on headed notepaper. He claims that the Respondent failed to file Court papers required from 7th July 2015 till 20th January 2016, and that the Respondent asserted that it had filed the said papers that day. The Respondent then belatedly filed the Court paper on 29th January 2016, which the Complainant says confirms the extent to which the litigation is protracted to his detriment which he says is unfavourable treatment, abuse, disrespectful, dismissive, and harassing and in violation of his human dignity.

The Complainant says the Respondent moved the goal post on 8th and 9th June 2016 after he had responded to all of its questions which the solicitor asserted she had issued to him from 1st March to 22 March 2016. The Complainant says the Respondent sent further post incorrectly addressed to him in June and undermined two Court Orders in April and June 2016.

In addition, the Complainant says that the Respondent solicitor verbally abused him from behind in the Courthouse on 15th July 2016.

The Complainant’s form E3 alleges that he has been sexually harassed and the Respondent has allowed him to be sexually harassed. The Complainant relies on the European Convention on Human Rights articles 1,2, 3,6,7,9, 10, 13, 14, 17 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Complainant objects to the preliminary application made by the Respondent and relies on S11 of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2015 and the Equal Treatment Directive.

The Respondent denies the allegations of discrimination, harassment, sexual harassment and victimisation of the Complainant. The Respondent replied denying all allegations by Form ES2 on 18th July 2016.

The Respondent represents the Complainant’s estranged wife in family law proceedings. On 7th and 8th June 2016 the solicitor sent 2 letters to the Complainant furnishing additional documentation on 7th June and setting out queries on 8th of June 2016 in advance of a hearing on 9th June 2016. The delay in furnishing these on the eve of the hearing was due to the pressure of work and was not strategic nor was it an attempt to discriminate against, harass or victimise the Complainant. The letter of 7th June 2016 was addressed to the Complainant correctly so it is not clear why it was not delivered to him. Letter of 8th June 2016 was inadvertently addressed to the Complainant at a previous address, and was a clerical error. A colleague attended the hearing on 9th June 2016 as the solicitor was in another Court and denies any attempt to ambush him. This was not deliberate nor harassment or victimisation of the Complainant. The solicitor then sent a plain copy of her letter of 8th June subsequently and the Complainant mistakenly interpreted this as a breach of protocol when a file copy was produced to the Court.

The solicitor says that she sent the Court paper to the Court on 18th January 2016 but additional Affidavits were required by the Court office in order to file this. On 20th January 2016 the County Registrar extended time to comply by 3 weeks. This was due to practical difficulties in finalising the document when received from Counsel prior to Christmas. The Respondent disputes that the complaints amount to a practice of treating him unfavourably, abusively, disrespectfully, dismissively, disdainfully and harassingly in violation of his human dignity.

The Respondent strongly objects to the allegation of sexual harassment or allowing the Complainant to be sexually harassed and notes no particulars of this allegation has been given.

Preliminary Objection

The Respondent objects to the complaint made by the Complainant. The Respondents named are the Respondent, a Solicitor and 2 centres for provision of services.

The solicitor named is providing legal services to a party against whom the Complainant has ongoing family law proceedings. The complaints made are ill conceived as no service contemplated by S5 has been or is being provided to the Complainant and therefore all complaints should be dismissed. The Respondent is not a provider of goods, services or facilities to the Complainant. The complaints are not well founded. The complaints are made in bad faith, are spurious, defamatory and without merit. They are vexatious and frivolous. They are intimidatory of the solicitor dealing with the matter and intended to impact on her ability to do her job as solicitor to the other party in the litigation.

The Respondent’s solicitor is representing a party and the proceedings are covered by the “in camera” rule. The Respondent seeks that the Complainant’s complaint be dismissed in the interest of natural justice and pursuant to S22 of the Equal Status Act 2000.

In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I enquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present any evidence relevant to the complaint. I have also considered further written submissions furnished by the Complainant on 12th December 2018.

I have decided in the interest of a third party and related sensitive family law proceedings that the parties to this complaint should not be named.

This complaint is a duplicate of the complaint made in ADJ-00004509 which decision has already issued.

The complaint fails as it is a duplicate of complaint ADJ-00004509 which decision has already issued.

Duplicate complaint