Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Pierce Parker

Linda Berg

Representatives

  Not represented

Did not attend the hearing

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00038559-001

07/07/2020

This is a complaint about discrimination on the ground of race, age and gender in relation to the provision of housing.   The complainant is an Asian American and his complaint is that, contrary to section 6(1)(c) of the Equal Status Act 2000, he was discriminated against when, on May 10th 2020, the respondent refused to permit him to move into a room in an apartment that had been advertised for rent and for which he had submitted the documents requested by the respondent to confirm his identity and his ability to pay the rent.

The complainant came to Dublin in September 2014 and he said that he became homeless in November 2015.  He said that he has slept on the street and in hostels.  When the Covid-19 pandemic struck, when the hostels closed, he said that he slept in his office at work.

On May 3rd 2020, the complainant replied to an advertisement on Facebook for a room for rent in an apartment in Parkwest, Dublin 12.  The respondent replied to his application and gave him the address to view the apartment.  On May 8th, he sent the respondent the following documents:

1.           A reference from his employer;

2.           A copy of his passport;

3.           Contact details of his next of kin;

4.           Country of origin, home address and contact details;

5.           Proof that he had sufficient funds to pay the rent and the first month’s deposit.

The respondent replied the same day and confirmed that she had received the documents.  She asked the complainant if someone could provide a character reference. 

On May 9th, the complainant went to view the room and was met by a man who said he was a neighbour and who showed him around the apartment.  He observed that the apartment was very clean and he noticed four new beds still in the wrapping.  He decided that he would move in immediately.  He wrote to the respondent and she replied asking him which room he would like.  However, the next day, May 10th 2020, the respondent sent what the complainant described as “an extraordinary email message.”  In the email, she told the complainant that she had heard from the owners of the apartment and that it appeared to be likely that “they are taking the apartment back.”  She said that she would confirm the following day and that she would keep the complainant’s details on file in the event that a similar apartment became available.

The complainant claims that the respondent’s assertion that the owners might be taking the apartment back “is a lie” because it remained advertised on Facebook on May 11th 2020.  He said that, from the information he provided to confirm his identity, the owners were aware of his gender, nationality, age and birth place.  He claims that, contrary to the provisions of the Equal Status Act, he was “treated less favourably and differently because of one of these reasons.”

When I asked the complainant why he thinks he might have been discriminated against, he said that the rental of the apartment was “a typical Brazilian sub-letting arrangement.”  He claimed that Brazilian people rent apartments for €1,000 per month and they rent three rooms for €400 each and make a profit of €200.  He described the respondent as one of the “middle people” who exploit the rental market and keep the cost of rent so high that single people can’t afford to rent rooms.  He said that when Brazilians see him, they assume that, as an American, he is not acceptable as a tenant.

The respondent did not attend that hearing and did not send a representative.

The Relevant Law

Discrimination is defined at section 3 of the Equal Status Act as follows:

(1) For the purposes of this Act discrimination shall be taken to occur -

(a) 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 in subsection (2) or, if appropriate, subsection (3B), (in this Act referred to as the ‘discriminatory grounds’) which -

(i) exists,

(ii) existed but no longer exists,

(iii) may exist in the future, or

(iv) is imputed to the person concerned,

(b) where a person who is associated with another person - 

(i) is treated, by virtue of that association, less favourably than a person who is not so associated is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, and 

(ii) similar treatment of that other person on any of the discriminatory grounds would, by virtue of paragraph (a), constitute discrimination, or

(c) where an apparently neutral provision would put a person referred to in any paragraph of section 3(2) at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons, unless the provision is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary. 

Subsection (2) sets out the discriminatory grounds.  The grounds that are relevant to the complainant are at (2)(a), (f) and (h):

       (a)  That one is a male and the other is female (the “gender ground”);

(f)  That one is a male and the other is female (the “gender ground);

 (h)  that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins (the “ground of race”).

In accordance with the objectives of the Act, a member of the public has a right to access the accommodation provided for rent by the respondent without being discriminated against on any ground.  Section 5(1) addresses this right:

A person shall not discriminate in the disposing of goods to the public generally or to a section of the public, or in providing a service, whether the disposal or provision is for a consideration or otherwise and whether the service can be availed of only by a section of the public.

My task here is to consider the decision of the respondent not to proceed with her offer of a room for rent to the complainant, an American man, around the age 25 to 30 and, to decide if, on the basic facts, a presumption of discrimination can be shown.

Findings

Having considered the facts, and having reviewed the complainant’s evidence and the documents he provided at the hearing, and afterwards, I am at a loss to identify any evidence that shows that he was discriminated against the grounds of his age, gender or nationality.

In May 2020, thousands of people had left Ireland due to the Covid-19 pandemic and rental accommodation was plentiful.  When he went to view the apartment in May 2020, there was no queue and it seems that there was no one else competing with him to rent it. 

It is clear to me that, when she viewed the documents that the complainant submitted on May 8th to prove his identity and his ability to pay the rent, the respondent was satisfied that he was a suitable tenant, because she sent him an email saying, “Many thanks for the submitted documents, all are good for me.”  In the same email, she went on to ask, “would you have somebody who could give a character reference it could be a brief format and emailed to this email?”  The complainant didn’t provide a character reference, but he went to see the apartment and on May 9th, the respondent wrote to him and asked him which room he would like.  All of this indicates that the respondent was keen to rent the apartment and she was satisfied, based on the documents he provided, that the complainant would be a suitable tenant.

On May 11th however, the respondent wrote to the complainant to say that the owners might be “taking the apartment back.”  I agree with the complainant’s surmising that this was probably untrue, particularly as the apartment remained available for rent on Facebook.  However, based on her initial intention to rent him the apartment, I think the respondent’s decision to withdraw the offer was not related to the fact that he is an American man in his early 30s.  As she asked for a character reference, and, as the complainant did not provide such a reference, it is my view that the respondent withdrew her offer for some reason other than the complainant’s age, gender or nationality.

I am sorry that the complainant has experienced such challenges regarding accommodation, but I must conclude that, on the facts of this case, he has not shown that he was discriminated against.

I have considered the complainant’s evidence and the documents he submitted at the hearing on August 12th 2021 and the following day.  It is my view that the basic facts he relies on to demonstrate that he was discriminated against are insufficient to lead me to presume that discrimination occurred.  I decide therefore, that his complaint is not well-founded.

Discrimination on the ground of race, age and gender.  Provision of housing.