Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Siofra  O'Donovan

SuperValue Daly's

Representatives

  In person

Store Manager

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00043678-001

20/04/2021

This complaint was received from a member of the public on 20th April 2021.

The complaint is made under the Equal Status Act 2000.

In December 2021 the Complainant while waiting in the self-service queue in SV Greystones Church Road, a woman with a dark bob glared at her and told her to social distance, which the Complainant believes she was already doing.

 Feeling distinctly uncomfortable, the Complainant, after paying for her shopping,  went to Shane Hard, manager, and told him what had happened. He said that the woman in question was entirely right to do what she did, given that I was not wearing a mask.

This was the first act of discrimination the Complainant experienced in this store, where she has been shopping for 11+ years.

Shane Hard was told clearly that the Complainant has an exemption for medical reasons. He did not acknowledge this. The Complainant returned to the store on 4. 1. 2021. The usually friendly Margie, who works at the till, was unfriendly.

 The Complainant had just spent 54 Euro in SV Greystones (Church Road). She again spoke to Shane Hard, manager, who tried to inform her that she should be wearing a mask, when it was clear that she had told him that she had an exemption, that she cannot do so due to medical reasons, and that to discriminate against her (Under the Equal Status Act) in the store was unacceptable.

The Complainant feels she had no choice but to report this as it affects her health, her wellbeing and her status in the community.

The Complainant contends that the Equal Status Acts 2000-18 prohibits discrimination in the provision of goods and services. And the Disability Act 2005 access to mainstream public services and actions to support access to services. Shane Hard and some of the staff were in breach of these Acts when they discriminated against a person with a disability that holds them exempt from wearing a mask or even a face covering like a scarf, as the Complainant did in fact wear.

There are a range of reasons for why a person such as the Complainant might not be able to wear a mask: Asthma, Emphysema, Epilepsy, ADHD, PTSD, Anxiety, Panic Disorders, Vertigo, Hearing Problems, Breathing Difficulties, Allergies and many more.

To discriminate against a person suffering with any of these, and who cannot as a result wear a mask, is unacceptable.

The Complainant has concerns about her reputation and sense of standing in the Greystones community as a result of this discrimination. The incidents have had significant effect on her mental health by causing undue stress and anxiety which has in turn affected her work and my private life.

The Respondent pointed out that the Complainant was not refused entry to or service in the shop.

The manager informed the hearing that all members of staff are trained on measures put in place during the Covid pandemic and he is satisfied that staff members acted in accordance with that training.

Whilst being apologetic to the Complainant in relation to her shopping experience he also pointed out that the Complainant was not refused service.

One or two members of staff members have long term health concerns and were in the vulnerable category during the pandemic.

The Equal Status Acts 2000 – 2018 (the Acts) prohibit discrimination in the provision of goods and services, accommodation and education. They cover the nine grounds of gender, marital status, family status, age disability, sexual orientation, race, religion, and membership of the Traveller community. In addition, the Acts prohibit discrimination in the provision of accommodation services against people who are in receipt of rent supplement, housing assistance, or social welfare payments.

Equality law is based on comparison; how one person is treated by comparison to another who does not possess the relevant characteristic. It is therefore necessary to ground a claim of discrimination by pointing to how another person, not having the protected characteristic relied upon, was, is or would be treated in a comparable situation. This is referred to as a comparator. A comparator must be employed by the same employer as the complainant or by an associated employer.

A comparator is an evidential tool. They are intended to contrast the treatment of the complainant, in respect to the matter complained of, with that of another person in similar circumstances who does not have the protected characteristic relied upon.

The Complainant is unable for medical reasons to wear a mask. During the period 2020-21, she wore a scarf around her mouth and nose area, to placate the mandatory order to wear masks.

In the instant case the Complainant entered the Respondent’s premises, on two separate occasions, with the purpose to purchase goods (groceries, provisions etc). She purchased these goods and then spoke to the Respondent’s manager in relation to what she perceived to be a poor attitude from some staff members.

The Respondent’s manager told the Complainant that the staff member who asked her to social distance done the right thing.

The Complainant was not refused service in the Respondent’s premises. She did not like the attitude of the staff who served her. Whilst she may have found this unpleasant it does not constitute discrimination.

Having considered the matter, I find the complaint as presented is not well-founded and therefore fails.

Having considered the matter, I find the complaint as presented is not well-founded and therefore fails.