Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Reima  Petramaa

Ttec

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-00045889-001

31/08/2021

The complainant referred a complaint against the respondent on 31st August 2021 alleging the respondent discriminated against him on the grounds of sexual orientation and that the Respondent had treated him unlawfully by discriminating against him and harassing him.

The Complainant had applied for a position with the Respondent and had attended for interview on 27th May 2021.

I applied for a position of Finnish BDR with TTEC and had a job interview with Team Manager (name redacted) and with another man on Thursday 27 May 2021. I have a bedroom on the first floor where I also have a computer desk. It was easy to notice that the interviewer was next door at (address redacted) behind the wall just opposite to my desk. First thing the interviewer did that he changed the job interview time by 30 minutes. I replied to him by email and confirmed the new time at 10:30am. After he received my reply he said something completely irrelevant. I have a reason to believe that the Finnish prostitution ring had informed that I am non-gay.

I also noticed that the Finnish prostitutes had defamed and slandered me to the interviewer. I experienced ruthless blaspheme. For this reason, I mentioned about the blaspheme in my complaint to Garda on the 10th of June 2021. I made the first complaint about this persecution to the Garda on the 6th of July 2019. The Garda also accepted my complaint, so there is an active file in their system. However, the Garda has not done anything to unravel the situation. I have also provided a witness statement about the manhunt to them.

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. the recruiters employed by the Respondent conducted the virtual interview from the home of the prostitutes. The Complainant contends that he has reason to believe that the Finnish prostitute ring had informed the recruiter that the Complainant was non-gay. He also contends that the Finnish prostitutes had defamed and slandered him to the interviewer.

I have considered the complaint as presented by the Complainant and find that 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 and pursuant to Section 77A of the Employment Equality Act I dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Employment Equality Act 1998, section 77A.