CORRECTION ORDER.

Issued pursuant to section 88 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998.

This Order corrects the original Decision issued on 12th April 2022 and should be read in conjunction with that Decision.

File Reference: ADJ – 00036101.

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A job applicant	An IT service provider

Representatives

Complaint(s):

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-00047299-001	23/11/2021

Date of Adjudication Hearing:

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I have studied the complaint and now find as follows

Background:

The complainant referred a complaint against the respondent on 23rd November 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 attended for interview on 18th November 2021.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

I applied for a position with (name redacted). Sales Manager, (name redacted) arranged a job interview for the 18th of November 2021 at 15:00. It was carried out through Chime web meeting platform. During this interview internet connection was unstable so audio disconnected frequently. This issue made it hard to communicate and hear what the participants said.

During the pandemic it has been possible to work from home or wherever you are. It has been common that my job interviews have been carried out next door at (address redacted) where the Finnish prostitution ring has stayed. I have been persecuted from residence to another in Dublin for over 5 years by the prostitutes and their friends. I have submitted several complaints to Garda. Therefore, I know that there is a plot/conspiracy against me. These people who have chased me are able to do whatever they want as long as they and other people can keep things secret. After this job interview the prostitutes, their friends and (name redacted) herself started to harass me next door. This harassment revealed that (name redacted) discriminated against me by sexual orientation. I wrote down the harassment I experienced: "She doesn't buy you because you are so fresh straight", , 19.11.2021, 12:34 "We don't like straights",(name redacted),19.11.2021, 12:34 "We don't take him because he doesn't like us" (name redacted) 19.11.2021, 13:25 "He thinks Reima sinks in self-pity when we fuck him off", (name redacted) 19.11.2021, 13:28 "Do you thought you are somebody although we have sooted you unemployed", 19:11.2021, 14:03 "She doesn't buy you from (name redacted), man in Finnish, 19.11.2021, 14:03 "(name redacted) could hire you but she doesn't want any straight", man in Finnish, 19:11.2021, 14:17 "Big scumbag this Reima when he changes us, I don't like him" (name redacted), 19.11.2021, 14:27 "She doesn't buy you" 21.11.2021 at 18:18 "What you said was right, I don't buy his like jerk", ( Name redacted), 21.11.2021, 18:19 "(name redacted) intends to hire somebody else but not you", woman in

Finnish, 21.11.2021, 18:37 "Reima could have made millions with us but we don't care because he is straight", (name redacted)22.11.2021, 10:43 "They will never hire you because you are so respectable", man in Finnish, 22.11.2021, 10:47 "He would have been fine, but I don't like him”, (name redacted), 22.11.2021, 11:13

This shows how ruthless these people are to me. I would need a job but there are people who like to prevent me getting one.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

Findings and Conclusions:

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.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 77 A of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint.