Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A young person

A toyshop

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00033283-001

19/12/2019

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant’s mother and father were present and both gave evidence under affirmation.  The respondent was represented by one of its Head Office staff who gave evidence under affirmation.

The incident took place on 30 June 2019.  The respondent was notified of the complaint by the complainant on 17 September 2019.

As the complainant is a minor with a hidden disability, the adjudicator indicated that this decision was likely to be anonymised and sought submissions from both parties.  No objections were raised to the proposed course of action.

The complainant was represented by his mother who submitted that on 30 June 2019, the family went shopping.  While she was outside at a cash dispenser her children entered the respondent’s premises while her partner waited outside.

The complainant’s mother submitted that while she was at the dispenser she noticed that one of the staff was outside talking to her partner.  Her son (the complainant) had a Lego game in his hands which was still sealed.  It was submitted that the sales assistant did not believe that the toy was bought elsewhere.  The couple produced the relevant receipt which was in the bag in the possession of one of their daughters who was inside the respondent’s premises.

It was submitted that the sales assistant then proceeded to tell the couple how they should parent their child.

The respondent submitted that in situations like the one in this case where a child seeks to exit the store with a sealed toy, proof of purchase is always sought from the child or parents when they are present.

The respondent submitted that in this instance there were only made aware that the child had a disability after they sought proof of purchase.  The respondent indicated that a second sales assistant witnessed the first assistant seeking proof of purchase. 

As to the allegations that the shop assistant told the parents how to parent, the respondent submitted that, unfortunately, as the sales assistant was deceased, they were not in a position to comment further.

Section 21(2) of the Equal Status Acts 2000 – 2015 states that

(2) 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 under this Act, and

(b) may in that notification, with a view to assisting the complainant in deciding whether to refer the case to the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission or, as the case may be, the Circuit Court, question the respondent in writing so as to obtain material information and the respondent may, if the respondent so wishes, reply to any such questions.

(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2) the date of notification is the date on which the notification is sent, unless it is shown that the notification was not received by the respondent.

(3) (a) On application by a complainant the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission or, as the case may be, the Circuit Court may —

(i) for reasonable cause, direct that in relation to the complainant subsection (2) shall have effect as if for the reference to 2 months there were substituted a reference to such period not exceeding 4 months as is specified in the direction, or

(ii) exceptionally, where satisfied that it is fair and reasonable in the particular circumstance of the case to do so direct that subsection (2) shall not apply in relation to the complainant to the extent specified in the direction,

and, where such a direction is given, this Part shall have effect accordingly.

 (b) In deciding whether to give a direction under paragraph (a)(ii) the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission or, as the case may be, the Circuit Court shall have regard to all the relevant circumstances, including —

(i) the extent to which the respondent is, or is likely to be, aware of the circumstances in which the prohibited conduct occurred, and

(ii) the extent of any risk of prejudice to the respondent’ s ability to deal adequately with the complaint.

The incident took place on 30 June 2019 and was reported to the respondent on 17 September 2019.  When asked about the circumstances of the delay in notifying the respondent regarding this complaint, the complainant indicated that they were not aware of an obligation to notify the complainant and that they sought the advice of a solicitor who directed them to seek advice from a solicitor located where the incident took place. Their solicitor submitted the notification on 17 September 2019.  Although the complaint was vague about the circumstances of the transfer from one solicitor to another, I am prepared to consider that this circumstance amounts to reasonable cause for the delay in notifying the complainant.

As regards the evidence put forward by the complainant’s mother as to the incident that took place, I note that the complainant left the shop with a sealed toy in his possession which was not in a shopping bag from another shop, to join either his father or mother outside the shop.  I also note that the sales assistant approached the complainant’s father seeking proof of purchase for the toy. I note that there was nothing which would identify that the complainant had a disability.  Arising from the foregoing, it is difficult to conclude that seeking proof of purchase was either down to thecomplainant’s disability or would not have been sought from another person without a disability who exited the shop in similar circumstances.  It does not appear that the complainant was treated less favourable than anyone else would have been in the circumstance of this interchange.  Accordingly, I find that the respondent did not engage in prohibited conduct.

As regards the allegation that the sales assistant proceeded to tell the parents how they should parent their child, there is no complaint  before me regarding discriminatory treatment relating to any one other than the complainant and as such, that allegation is beyond the scope of this complaint.

My decision is that the respondent did not engage in prohibited conduct.

Equal Status Act, notification, prohibited conduct.