Complainant

Respondent

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-00009381-001

20/01/2017

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

CA-00009382-001

20/01/2017

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 January 2017. His complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 20th January 2017.

The Complainant claims that he has been discriminated against, harassed, allowed to be harassed 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 alleges discrimination by the Respondent when an Affidavit referenced details of in camera proceedings inappropriately to which the Respondent are not party, treated the privacy rights of the Complainant dismissively abusively, unfavourably and disrespectfully.

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, and harassment of the Complainant. The Respondent replied denying all allegations by Form ES2 on 10th January 2017.

The Respondent represents the Complainant’s estranged wife in family law proceedings. The Complainant furnished the Respondent with an Affidavit in November 2016 alleging harassment victimisation, and racial abuse by the solicitor on 15 July 2016 which is denied. A copy of this was handed into Court. The Respondent was then obliged to respond to this Affidavit which became part of the record in the proceedings, and served a Replying Affidavit on the Complainant on 19th December 2016. The Respondent denies any breach of the in camera rule as the Complainant is a party to the proceedings, and that the contents treat his privacy rights dismissively abusively, unfavourably and disrespectfully.

Preliminary Objection

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

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

The Complainant claims that he was discriminated against, harassed or allowed to be harassed by the Respondent on grounds of his race in terms of Section 3 (1) and S 3 (2) (h) of the Equal Status Acts and contrary to S 5 (1) of the Acts in the manner in which the Respondent has acted in providing legal services in representing his estranged spouse. The legal service being provided by the Respondent is to another party and not to the Complainant.

The Respondent has raised this as a preliminary issue and says that the complaints do not fall within the Equal Status Acts 2000- 2015. The question to be considered is whether the Complainant sought a service which comes within the Equal Status Acts 2000-2015.

Section 5 (1) of the Equal Status Act 2000:

“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”.

“Service” means a service or facility of any nature which is available to the public generally or a section of the public under the Act.

The Respondent denies it is a service provider under the Act and says that the complaint is misconceived. The Complainant complains about the manner of the service provided by the Respondent to another party. He does not have any legal relationship with the Respondent in relation to the services provided. He is not in receipt of goods or services from the Respondent and accordingly he does not have locus standi to bring this complaint.

There is no service provided by the Respondent to the Complainant and his complaint fails.

The Complainant does not have locus standi to bring the complaint and this fails.

Locus Standi, provision of services under S5 of the Equal Status Act 2000