Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Robert  Cantwell

Easons Bookshop

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Customer

A Bookstore

Representatives

  Self Represented

Conor O'Gorman IBEC

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00034735-001

18/02/2020

The Complainant alleged he was discriminated on as a result of his disability while visiting the Respondents premises. Both parties made brief verbal submissions. The alleged incident of discrimination occurred on December 21st 2019. The Complainant lodged an ESA Notification form with the Respondent on February 17th 2020 and the Respondent replied to the ESA form.

The Complainant provided details of his disability and supporting medical documentation. He had a brain injury a long number of years ago (1984) and 98% of his left hand does not function and 705 of his left leg does not function.

The Complainant advised he had a set routine every day and enjoyed going into the Respondents shop.

On December 21st 2019 the Complainant went for a swim and got the bus into Galway. He had a few bags with him to get Christmas food and supplies.

The Complainant lives alone with his dog.

The Complainant went into the Respondents shop to purchase the Irish Times, which he has done for 30 or 40 years.

He advised that the Newspaper stand had been changed form its regular position to near the tills and it used to be near the windows.

The Complainant advised that there was obstacles all over the place and it was hard to get through and he had difficulty moving to the left due to his disability.

The Complainant saw there was a big queue and  asked an Assistant stacking books could they help him as he was not able for the situation. He advised the Assistant that he had a disability and could not stand in the queue and asked for help. The Sales Assistant pointed the Complainant in the direction of the Manager who was two meters away working on a display. The Complainant told the Manager he was disabled and asked for help. The Manager looked at him and said nothing and wide eyed. The Complainant looked at him astonished and perplexed and felt like he was an intruder. The Manager took the newspaper and the Complainant to the till, by-passing the queue and served the Complainant quickly.  The place was crazy and bedlam. The Complainant felt inhuman and stated that there were laws in this country to protect people like the Complainant.

The Complainant cancelled his plans to go to M& S and went home to bed for the afternoon. He then went on the Internet to look for Easons Headquarters. It was a Saturday before Christmas and he rang loads of numbers (16 calls) and no one picked up his calls. On the Monday a Mr. w rang the Complainant and the Complainant advised him that he needed to do something about this but never mentioned anything about  money. The Complainants dog was dying at the time and unfortunately died on March 18th 2020.

The Complainant advised Mr. W he did not want a gesture of goodwill just that they are sorry and to forgive us. Mr. W asked why the Complainant did not go tot the Store Manager and the Complainant advised hat he was out of his depth and was in in a mind to have a chat with the Store Manager.

The Respondent advised that their Support Office was closed at weekends.

The Respondent advised that the person involved did not know the Complainant had a disability and once the Complainant made the Manager aware of this he was taken to the top of the queue and given special assistance to buy his newspaper.

The Respondent stated there was no dispute about the facts of what happened but that as soon as the Complainant informed the Respondent Manager of his disability he got accommodated to get his newspaper and that any delay in assisting the Complainant or perceived attitude by staff towards him was not intentional.

The Christmas period was very busy for staff and the store was very busy and as soon as the Head Office opened on Monday after the incident the Complainant was contacted and offered a gesture of goodwill which he declined.

The Complainants complaint was that he was not given a reasonable accommodation due to his disability and the Respondent discriminated against him accordingly.

The Law;

3.(2) As between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are:

that one is a person with a disability and the other either is not or is a person with a different disability (the ‘‘disability ground’’),

(2)                      A refusal or failure to provide the special treatment or facilities to which subsection (1) refers shall not be deemed reasonable unless such provision would give rise to a cost, other than a nominal cost, to the provider of the service in question.

(3)                      A refusal or failure to provide the special treatment or facilities to which subsection (1) refers does not constitute discrimination if, by virtue of another provision of this Act, a refusal or failure to provide the service in question to that person would not constitute discrimination.

(4)                      Where a person has a disability that, in the circumstances, could cause harm to the person or to others, treating the person differently to the extent reasonably necessary to prevent such harm does not constitute discrimination.

(5)                      This section is without prejudice to the provisions of sections 7(2)(a), 9(a) and 15(2)(g) of the Education Act, 1998, in so far as they relate to functions of the Minister for Education and Science, recognised schools and boards of management in regard to students with a disability.

(6)                      In this section—

‘‘provider of a service’’ means—

(a)     the person disposing of goods in respect of which section 5(1) applies,

(b)     the person responsible for providing a service in respect of which section 5(1) applies,”

At the Hearing the Complainant conducted himself with dignity, spoke eloquently and cohesively and did not show any obvious signs of his disability. Admittedly the Hearing was conducted on-line but the salient point here is that the Complainant did  not display any obvious signs of his disability, which is not being questioned in any shape or form by the Adjudicator in my statement. The reason for stating this is that if staff at the Respondent did not see an immediate obvious sign of disability then how were they  to know the Complainant was disabled?. Once the Complainant identified himself as disabled he was directed to a Manager and then taken to the top of the queue and assisted with his purchase. The fact that it was so close to Christmas and the shop had rearranged its layout obviously caused the Complainant distress to his normal pattern of doing things daily. The fact that the Complainant could not make contact with Head Office was not unreasonable as it was a weekend before Christmas.

In the Respondents reply to the Complainants ESA complaint form they stated inter alia that the queue was quite long and the Complainant was at the back of the queue. That the Complainant “forcefully” approached a staff member and informed her that it was illegal for the store to make him queue as he had a disability. The Complainant “thrust” his newspaper towards the staff member and wanted her to take his purchase on the shop floor. The Store Employee tried to explain to the Complainant that this was not possible. The Store manager was nearby and was asked by the Store Employee to come over and facilitate the Complainant. The Store Manager took the Complainant to the top of the queue and facilitated the sale of the newspaper and the Complainant then left the store. The Respondent objected to the Complainants behaviour towards the female staff member as it was unacceptable to them from providing a safe place of work for their staff.

My conclusion here is that the Complainant had an unfortunate experience in the store due to the changes in layout and the “bedlam” as he described it going on for Christmas shopping. None of these issues he describes are discriminatory acts and applied to disabled and non-disabled people equally. Once he identified his disability he was given “special treatment”by being brought to the top of the queue in compliance with the Act. The Store employee and Manager acted swiftly and reasonably once the Complainant identified that he had a disability. The Complainant takes issue with how some people responded to him but this is his interpretation of events and maybe due to the stress of the situation he may have seen things which were not quite as he interprets them. The Respondent equally takes issue with how the Complainant behaved towards the female staff member but I am glad to see that the Complainant and Respondent continue to enjoy him purchasing the Irish Times on a daily basis.

I find that the Respondent did not engage in prohibited conduct.

Discrimination