Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Patrick Doody

Kerry Deaf Resource Centre

Representatives

David Fitzgerald Philip O' Sullivan & Co. Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00019645-001

07/06/2018

The Complainant is seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000.

The Complainant is making a claim in relation to an incident which occurred in February 2018 but it was the end of March/start of April before she saw the event in the paper and this is the reason for the late submission of the ES1 form.

The Complainant was aware of the 8 weeks requirement to send the ES1.

The Complainant states that English is not his first language so it took longer to submit it and this is why he requires an extension of time.

The Complainant is deaf and uses sign language to communicate.

The Complainant believes that he has been treated unlawfully by the Respondent. The Complainant feels that the Respondent discriminated against him and failed to provide him with ‘reasonable accommodation’ at a Public Participation Network and Disability Federation of Ireland Workshop called Access for All. The Complainant states that the Respondent is not deaf and failed to inform and invite the local Deaf Community to the workshop. The Respondent had provided an ISL interpreter for the workshop but there was no deaf people in attendance for the interpreting service provided.

The Complainant states that the Respondent was aware of the workshop since December 2017 and invitations were sent out in January 2018. The workshop took place on 27 February 2018. The Complainant contacted the organiser of the event and she provided the relevant information to the Complainant. The Complainant was only informed of the event by viewing pictures in the local newspaper. An American deaf woman attending, while on a social work internship, questioned the Respondent as to whether there were deaf people at the event. The Respondent replied with a curt “No”.

The Complainant sent an ES1 form on 17 May 2018 for the Respondent’s attention to answer his six questions under the Equal Status Acts, 2000-2015 about his conduct as a service provider regarding the ‘Access for All’ workshop. One of the questions the Complainant asked was: what was the Respondents responses to the four rounds of questions as the Respondent had acted as a “participant” for the local Deaf Community with an ISL interpreter when there were no local Deaf people in attendance. The Complainant attached the four pages of questions sent by the workshop organiser to the Respondent for him to complete along with the ES2 form.

The Respondent failed or refused to respond to the ES2 form. The deadline has now passed.

The Respondent received the notification (Copy of ES1 form, four rounds of questions provided at the event, registered post receipt and emails from the workshop organiser) on 18 May 2018.

The Complainant feels that the Respondent deliberately avoided informing everyone and by doing so discriminated against deaf people in the Deaf Community of the Access for All Workshop. The Complainant felt that this was an act of discrimination and victimisation.

The Respondent states that the Complainant was very familiar with the time lines to legal representatives. The Complainant was trained proactively on this legislation. There were 1:1 sessions with one staff member regarding the timelines and process involved.

The Respondent states that the PPN (an independent body) was organising this event. The Respondent was not involved in organising the event or inviting anyone to attend the event. The Respondent only replied with an expression of interest to say that he would be interested in attending the event before Christmas break.   The Respondent took six weeks leave.   A deaf intern attended for placement from the US on the Respondent’s return to work from holidays and was due to attend the conference also. The Respondent had forgotten about the event until he saw the email reminder referencing the event. The Respondent emailed the organiser and asked if he could attend the event and also bring the intern. The Respondent was not aware that an interpreter was booked. The interpreter was booked by PPN. The interpreter was the Respondent’s sister but was booked via another interpreter agency.

The workshop involved a round table discussion format and everyone participated. No one was representing organisations. It was a two-hour event. Pictures were taken after the event and were in the paper the following week.

The Respondent states that he was seated at a different table to the intern at the event.

The Respondent said that he had eleven relatives including parents who are deaf. The Respondent along with his family set up the centre and campaigned for a national policy for access for the deaf community. As a result of this the Respondent stated that he would never discriminate against the deaf community.

Section 21 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 provides:

Before seeking redress under this section the complainant-

a)       Shall, within 2 months after the prohibited conducted is alleged to have occurred, or, where more than one incident of prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred, within 2 months after the last such occurrence, notify the respondent in writing of’

                                 I.            The nature of the allegation

                               II.            The Complainant’s intention, if not satisfied with the respondent’s response to the allegation, to seek redress by referring the case to the Director.

                             III.            The complainant states that he has been discriminated against by reason of his disability as he is deaf.

                            IV.            The Complainant states that the Respondent treated him unlawfully by discriminating against him and victimising him via his conditions of employment and by harassing him.

The Complainant states that he has been discriminated against as the Respondent failed to provide the Complainant with ‘reasonable accommodation’ at the workshop.

The Complainant is aware of the 8 week requirement to send the ES1 form.

The Complainant claims that there was no one who was deaf at the event. However, the Respondent states that there were deaf people at the event.

Section 21 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions. The Complainant took a claim against the Respondent regarding an event on 27 February 2018. The Complainant was fully aware of the time limit. There was no convincing reason or evidence why the timeline was not met and why the ES1 was only submitted on 17 May 2018.   Therefore, this complaint fails.