Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Reima  Petramaa

Microsoft Ireland

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00045875-001

29/08/2021

The complainant referred a complaint against the respondent on 29th August 2021 alleging the respondent discriminated against him on the grounds of age and sexual orientation and that the Respondent had treated him unlawfully by discriminating against him and harassing him.

The Complainant had applied for a job with the Respondent and had attended for interview on 12th August 2021 ( interview conducted virtually).

I worked in the Microsoft Nordic team for N3 Results Ireland Ltd as a Business Development Representative and Cloud Consultant till the 7th of August 2020. At the time 5 country teams and 50% of the personnel were made redundant. I managed to work for this company for almost 3 years. Due to his work experience I can say that I am expert in Microsoft products and their licensing. In addition, I know how Microsoft does business in Finland. A job interview was agreed well in advance, so I had a chance to prepare myself for it. I was advised to prepare a presentation of few slides. The presentation was well designed, and it answered the customer's needs and requirements.

On Thursday the 12th of August 2021 at 9:00am - 9:30am Digital CSA Manager (name redacted) carried out the role play. In my opinion, it went well, and I had a chance to show my expertise. Then 30 minutes later I had a job interview with Digital Specialist Manager (name redacted) at 10:00am -11:00am. In my opinion, this job interview went well, fluently and I was resourceful. Also, in this occasion, I showed my expertise and a good understanding of how Microsoft does business in Finland. For some reason, there was also present Sales Director (name redacted) next door.

In order to understand my dire situation in the recent job searches, I have to provide you some background information. I have been persecuted from residence to another by the Finnish prostitution ring for over 5 years. Currently they stay next door at (full address redacted). Many of my Finnish childhood friends, classmates, course mates, family friends and close relatives have joined and still stay with the prostitutes. Previously, I have sent many job applications and always all the recruiters have come and stayed several days next door with the Finnish prostitutes. I consider this an act of discrimination. So, there is a third party entangled with the recruitment process. This has created situation where the recruiters have not been able to make impartial decisions and they have become unfavourable to me. As far as this Microsoft job interview is concerned, I got rejection by email after two days on Saturday the 14th of August 2021. I was very upset about the rejection of my job application and wondered why they sent the rejection so rapidly. Then I realized that this job interview was feigned, and they already had decided to fail me in advance next door where they are surrounded by the Finnish prostitutes and my past friends. I experienced some bullying by (name redacted) who mentioned something related to my wrong sexual orientation. In addition, (name redacted) bullied me at least once by saying "until I am not hired". These happened before Microsoft rejected me and the sayings signal they had planned to fail me.

Section 85 A (1) of the Employment Equality Acts provides as follows:

“Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a person from which it may be presumed that prohibited conduct has occurred in relation to him or her, it is for the Respondent to prove the contrary”.

In the instant case the legal burden of proof is on Mr Petramaa in the first instance to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the ground of age and sexual orientation. It is only if he establishes this prima facie claim that the legal burden of proof shifts to the Respondent.

In Dr Teresa Mitchell v The Southern Health Board [2001] ELR 201 the Equality Tribunal considered the extent of the evidential burden which a claimant must discharge before a prima facie case of discrimination can be made out. It stated that the claimant must:

“establish facts from which it may be presumed that the principal of equal treatment has not been applied to them. This indicates that 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 these 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, then the onus shifts to the respondent to prove that there was no infringement of the principle of equal treatment”.

In Melbury Developments Ltd. V Valpeters EDA /0917 the Labour Court, in considering allegations of discrimination on the ground of race, held as follows: -

“Mere speculation or assertions, unsupported by evidence, cannot be elevated to a factual basis upon which an inference of discrimination can be drawn. Section 85A places the burden of establishing the primary facts fairly and squarely on the Complainant and the language of this provision admits of no exceptions to that evidential rule”.

I note that Melbury Developments Ltd. V Valpeters EDA /0917 was a case of race discrimination however the findings of the Labour Court still apply to the instant case.

Section 77 A of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 – 2015 reads as follows:

(1)    The Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission may dismiss a claim at any stage if of the opinion it has been made in bad faith or is frivolous, vexatious or misconceived or relates to a trivial matter.

In the instant case the Complainant contends that he was being persecuted by a ring of Finnish prostitutes who lived next door to him. His childhood friends, classmates, course mates, family friends and relatives have joined and still stay with the prostitutes and the recruiters employed by the Respondent conducted the virtual interview from the home of the prostitutes where they stayed for several days.

The Complainant contends that the interview was feigned and that one of the recruiters bullied him and informed him that he was of the wrong sexual orientation.

I have considered the complaint as presented by the Complainant and find that it is beyond belief.

I find that the complaint as presented is both frivolous and vexatious and pursuant to Section 77A of the Employment Equality Act I dismiss the claim in its entirety.

I find that the complaint as presented is both frivolous and vexatious. Pursuant to Section 77A of the Employment Equality Act I dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Employment Equality Act 1998, section 77A.