Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Catherine  Dunne

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Catherine Dunne

A Shop Assistant

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00043849-001

03/05/2021

The complainant outlined in her submission that she believes that she was discriminated against by the respondent who refused to serve her as she was not wearing a face mask.  The respondent did not attend the hearing.  This was one of three complaints submitted by the complainant and the respondent in one of the other cases confirmed that the person named in this complaint worked as a store assistant at the time of the incident but they have not worked for them for some time.  They do not represent this respondent and they have no knowledge of where she works or lives.

The complainant attended store on 03/12/2020.   The complainant submits that she was discriminated against on the grounds of disability.  She attended the store to make a purchase and was told by the respondent that she was not allowed to serve her.  She was informed that this was an instruction from one of the owners.  The basis for this refusal was because she was not wearing a face mask and the complainant believes that the signs on display stating, “No mask No Entry Protect All” and “No Mask No Service” were discriminatory.  The complainant outlined in her submission that she was prevented from wearing a face mask because of her disability.

The complainant sent an ES1 form to the respondent on 01/02/2021 using the address of the store.  No response was received.

The respondent or a representative on her behalf did not attend the hearing.  The respondent was notified of the date and time of the hearing at the address provided by the complainant.

The complainant made a complaint against the respondent who was an employee of the store where she worked.  Separate complaints were made against the store owner and post office operator in relation to the same incident.

Section 42(2) of the Equal Status Act 200, as amended states:

“(2) Anything done by a person as agent for another person, with the authority (whether express or implied and whether precedent or subsequent, of that other person shall, in any proceedings brought under this Act, be treated for the purposes of this Act as done also by that other person.”

The respondent cited in this case was clearly working as an agent for the store. I find that the respondent acted with full authority and support of the store (‘the other person”).  In that context the store is statutorily liable for the actions of the respondent and therefore I find that the named respondent is not statutorily liable for this complaint. I find that the complainant has named an incorrect respondent in these proceedings.  Accordingly, I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint.

As the respondent has not been properly identified I have decided to anonymise their name on this decision.

I decide that that complainant has named the incorrect respondent in these proceedings and accordingly I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint. 

Face mask.  Incorrect respondent.