Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mark J. Savage

Fingal County Council

Representatives

Helen O'Neill Law Department

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00026493-001

23/02/2019

The Complainant alleges discrimination by the Respondent on the grounds of his religion on 22nd August 2018.

The Complainant is an Evangelical Christian and is the founder of a denomination of Christianity. On 22nd August 2018 he emailed the Respondent inquiring to hire the chapel for an Evangelical Christian wedding ceremony. The Respondent provided its terms and conditions which provide at point 6:

“The chapel shall not be hired for the use of, or in connection with any organisation or government, committed for political, religious, ideological or similar purposes.”

The Respondent has advertised the availability of the premises for civil ceremonies, which includes marriage ceremonies. The Complainant has notified the Respondent of his religion, and has been treated less favourably than a hypothetical comparator is or has or would be treated who is lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender or atheist or religious person with a different religious belief who may have a civil ceremony exclusively or in addition to a religious marriage ceremony.

The Complainant does not wish to avail of a civil marriage ceremony due to his religious beliefs. The Complainant claims he is being directly discriminated against as he is excluded from hiring the chapel for a religious marriage ceremony, when it is available for a civil marriage ceremony of which Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgender persons or atheist persons can avail.

The Complainant submits the evidence submitted will establish the facts of the discrimination, and exceeds the burden of proof beyond all reasonable doubt.

The Respondent denies discrimination or victimisation of the Complainant on the basis of his religion and says he is being treated no differently than any other person of any other religion. There is no evidence of disadvantage and submits the Complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or victimisation.

On 22nd August 2018 the Complainant contacted the Respondent by email indicating he is an Evangelical Christian and that he wished to marry his future bride at Swords Castle at an Evangelical Christian Wedding. He was notified of the terms of hire on 24th August 2018 which provides that the Castle cannot be hired for use of a religious or ideological purpose.

The Respondent received a Form ES1 dated 23rd October 2018 which alleges discrimination against him and discrimination on religious grounds when S6 of the terms and conditions were specifically brought to his attention, and that he is being discriminated against as he cannot hire the Castle for his religious marriage when this venue can be used for civil ceremonies. The Respondent replied to the Form ES1 on 24th October 2018 denying the allegations.

The Respondent is responsible for promoting equality within the community, and its actions are objectively justifiable.

Swords Castle is a statutorily approved venue for civil marriages pursuant to the requirements of the Civil Registration Act 2004. The burden of proof lies on the Complainant to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The Complainant asserts he is an Evangelical Christian and the founder of a church in 2001. In ADJ 6826 dated 1st December 2017 the Complainant asserted he was a Roman Catholic.

It is submitted the Complainant has failed to adduce any evidence that he has been treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation. The complaint is misconceived as the comparator is a civil ceremony as opposed to a religious ceremony, and there is nothing in the Complainant’s evidence to suggest he is has or would be treated less favourably than any other person who seeks to hire the venue for religious purposes.

The Complainant erroneously sought to compare his position with members of the LGBT community.   However, this is not a religion but a social group that may consist of different religions, who have a shared characteristic.

No similar requests to hire the venue for religious purposes would be accepted nor have they been accepted. The Complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination or victimisation.

I have carefully considered the written and oral submissions of the parties in relation to this complaint.

Section 3 (1)(a) of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2015 provides that discrimination shall be taken to occur 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”. Section 3 (2) (e) provides that as between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds are (e) that one has a different religious belief from the other, or that one has a religious belief and the other does not (the religion ground).

S38A of the Acts sets out the burden of proof which applies to a claim of discrimination under the Acts and requires the Complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts from which the discrimination alleged may be inferred. It is only where such a prima facie case of discrimination has been established that the onus shifts to the Respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination raised.

The Complainant contacted the Respondent seeking to hire the Swords chapel for an Evangelical Christian wedding ceremony on 22nd August 2018. The Complainant was notified of the terms and conditions of use of the Castle as are all parties hiring the chapel, and the clause excluding use of the premises for religious purposes was drawn to his attention.

The Complainant alleges this is evidence of discrimination. This is not so, the terms and conditions of hire apply to all individuals (whether with religious beliefs, different religious beliefs or none) seeking to hire the Castle and prevent use of the Castle for a religious purpose including a religious marriage ceremony. The comparison of the Complainant with members of the LGBT community is not an appropriate comparator as the individuals may be of different religions or not. The Complainant has not evidenced any less favourable treatment by the Respondent on the grounds of his religion.

The Complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and victimisation in accordance with Mitchell v Southern Health Board (DEE011 15.2.01) which held:

“…a claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities the primary facts on which they rely in seeking to raise a presumption of unlawful discrimination. It is only if those primary facts are established to the satisfaction of the Court, and they are regarded by the Court as being of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination, that the onus shifts to the Respondent to prove that there was no infringement of the principle of equal treatment.”

The complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and the complaint fails.

Discrimination on religious grounds, access to services, prima facie case, misconceived