Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Orla  Kelly

Caulfield's Supervalu

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00043528-001

11/04/2021

This case concerns a claim that the Complainant was discriminated against by the Respondent as the person who provides a retail service to the public when the Respondent refused her entry to the store on the 5th March 2021.  The complaint, under the Equal Status Act, is of discrimination against the Complainant in the provision of goods and services. 

Notification of a complaint concerning discrimination and customer service and an intention to follow with proceedings to the Workplace Relations Commission was sent by email on 9th March 2021.  No reply was ever received from the Respondent to that email. 

The Complainant stated that on the 5th March 2021 the manager working with the Respondent refused her entry to the store because she was not wearing a face mask.  She stated that under the Amended Health Act 1947, section 5, (S.I.296/2020) it clearly states that there are exemptions with a reasonable excuse for not wearing a face covering.  The Complainant stated that she had been shopping in the store every week for the last number of years and also during the pandemic and had never had any issue with any other manager once she explained her situation.  However, she stated that on this occasion the manager on duty insisted that she show him a letter from her doctor proving that she had an exemption for medical reasons.  She stated that she tried to reason with that manager and explained that under the current law (which she had checked with the Citizens Advice Bureau), there was no legislation or law in place requiring her to provide written medical proof or exemption.  She stated that the only evidence required, in practice and in law, is the word of the individual who is exempt.  She stated that at this point the manager said that if she did not leave the store, he would call the Gardai.

The Complainant stated that she felt totally humiliated, embarrassed and degraded that this encounter had occurred in front of shoppers who were entering the store and that in that context she was left with no other option but to leave the store.  She stated in her complaint that she felt the actions against her, by the manager, on the 5th March, were both prejudiced and unlawful. 

The Respondent did not attend the hearing on the 25th March 2022 nor did the Respondent provide any written documentation to the Workplace Relations Commission. 

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing.  I am satisfied that the said Respondent was informed in writing of the date, time and arrangements for the remote hearing to investigate the complaint.  I find that the Respondents’ failure to attend such a hearing was unreasonable in the circumstances and that as no evidence was given at the hearing to challenge the allegations of discrimination, I conclude that the Complainants’ case is well founded and I find for the Complainant. 

The Respondent did not join the remote hearing and I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the arrangements for the hearing and that their non-attendance has not been explained at all and in these circumstances, I have found that the complaint is well founded.  In these circumstances it is my decision that the complaint is well founded, and that the complainant should be paid the amount of €1000 as compensation for the discrimination.

Equal status, discrimination, disability