ADJ-00019483

Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mark J. Savage

Economic Enterprise And Tourism Department - Fingal County Council

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00025403-001

30/01/2019

The Complainant alleges discrimination by the Respondent on the grounds of his religion on 31st July 2018.

The Complainant is an Evangelical Christian and is the founder of a denomination of Christianity. On 31st July 2018 he emailed the Respondent seeking to hire the chapel for a prayer meeting event to manifest his religious beliefs. The Respondent provided its terms drawing attention to no. 6 stating:

“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 when responding and bringing this issue to the Complainant’s attention is treating him less favourably than a comparator who is able to hire the chapel to marry in a civil marriage ceremony. This is a religious or other idealogical purpose and the service provided by the Respondent is discriminatory in nature. It unlawfully violates the Complainant’s constitutional and human right contained in the European Charter and Convention to manifest his religious beliefs. The Complainant relies on S3 of the Equal Status Act 2000.

The Complainant has furnished names of a couple who were married in a civil ceremony in the Respondent’s chapel as a comparator. The Complainant submits he has established a prima facie presumption of discrimination and says the burden shifts to the Respondent to show the comparator was not treated more favourably, because they are not Evangelical Christians nor members of the same church. The Complainant submits that he has established that he has been treated less favourably than the comparators in similar or comparable situation. He has established the Respondent was aware of his religion, and he has established the nexus between the discrimination and the grounds of religion or religious beliefs.

The Complainant sent a Form ES1 to the Respondent dated 7th August 2018.

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. It submits the complaint is misconceived.

On 31st July 2018 the Complainant expressly identified himself as an Evangelical Christian and sought to book the chapel to hold a prayer ceremony to celebrate and manifest his religious beliefs. He was notified of the terms of hire for the chapel in Swords Castle which provides that it cannot be hired for use of a religious or ideological purpose.

The Respondent received a Form ES1 dated 7th August 2018 which alleges discrimination and victimisation and alleges discrimination against him in comparison to individuals who hired the chapel for a civil ceremony.

The Respondent replied to the Form ES1 by letter dated 23rd August 2018 indicating that the Respondent acted in accordance with S42 (1) of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act 2014 in seeking to eliminate discrimination, promote equality of opportunity and treatment.

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 the Complainant asserted he was a Roman Catholic on 1st December 2017.

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. It is submitted the Complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or victimisation.

No similar requests to hire the venue for religious purposes would be accepted nor have they been accepted.

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 notifying them of his religion and religious beliefs seeking to hire the Swords chapel for a religious purpose on 31st July 2018. The Complainant was notified of the terms and conditions of use of the chapel 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 chapel and prevent use of the chapel for a religious purpose. The Complainant has not evidenced any less favourable treatment by the Respondent.

In addition, S14 of the Equal Status Act 2000 also applies:

(1)    Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting-

(a)    The taking of any action that is required by or under-

(i)any enactment or order of a court,…..

The Respondent as a public body is required to act in accordance with S42 (1) of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act 2014 in seeking to eliminate discrimination, promote equality of opportunity and treatment.

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.”

I find the complaint is misconceived and fails.

Religious discrimination, victimisation, no prima facie case, s14 of Equal Status Act