Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Reima  Petramaa

Citrix

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-00048135-001

13/01/2022

The Complainant submitted the within complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 13th January 2022.

The complainant contends that he was discriminated against by the Respondent on the grounds of sexual orientation and age.

The complainant applied for a position with the respondent and was interviewed on 11th January 2022.

I applied for a position of Digital Sales Representative with Citrix on the 22th of December 2021. This role required Finnish language skill. Please find a job description and email exchange enclosed. Interview was held on Tuesday 11.1.2022 at 16:00 - 17:00. In my opinion I performed well. However, only 2 days after the interview I got rejection email from Citrix. They presented some untrue excuses why Citrix decided not to continue with me. In fact, it got their rejection email today on Thursday 13.1.2020 at 11:29. However, I had got information about my rejection from the persecuting Finnish prostitutes at the (place name redacted) around 4:42am this morning. In other words, before Citrix had informed me their negative decision by email. In addition, I got a lot harassment from them and it referred to failure in my job search with Citrix. This shows how there is the third party entangled with the recruitment process and negative influence can be done after the interview. This is

completely illegal and invalid way of recruiting new employees. Here are some Finnish sayings (translated into English) expressed by the Finnish prostitutes and an Irish man: "(name redacted) has visited here to check, if you are gay", (name redacted), Monday 10.1.2022, 9:52am "They may fail him with Citrix because he is non-gay" man.

At the main post office, Monday 10.1.2022, 10:45am "(name redacted) doesn't like you", female, Wednesday 12.1.2022,9:25pm "We have revealed everything, Finnish female, Wednesday, 12.1.2022, 9:20am "Now I have some knowledge I don't like to know", (name redacted), Wednesday 12.1.2022, 9:25am "(name redacted) thought you are gay born in rubeness", Finnish man, Wednesday 12.1.2022, 1:05pm ", male/female, Thursday, 13.1.2022, 4:20am "(name redacted) can't do anything else but just slam Reima off, (name redacted) , Thursday 13.1.2022, 4:24am "We are here to prevent proficient man to succeed", female, Thursday 13.1.2022, 4:25am. "You get rejection from (name redacted) " Thursday 13.1.2022, 4:42am "There was a Finnish loser",

Finnish female, Thursday 13.1.2022, 4:53am ".

Section 85A (1) of the 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”.

The legal burden of proof is on Mr Petramaa in the first instance to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the grounds of age and sexual orientation. It is only if he establishes this prima facie case  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 principle 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, that 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 place 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 complaint on race grounds, the Labour Court ruling applies to the within complaint also.

The Complainant contends that he received the outcome decision on his interview from the ring of Finnish prostitutes before he received the outcome from the Respondent.

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

77A (1) The Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission may dismiss a claim at any stage if of the opinion that it has been made in bad faith or is frivolous, vexatious or misconceived or relates to a trivial matter.

I have carefully considered the complaint as presented by the Complainant. Pursuant to section 77A of the Act I find the complaint both frivolous and vexatious and therefore dismiss the complaint in its entirety.

I have carefully considered the complaint as presented by the Complainant. Pursuant to section 77A of the Act I find the complaint both frivolous and vexatious and therefore dismiss the complaint in its entirety.

Employment Equality Act, 1998.