Complainant

Respondent

Parties

A Child

A Civil Registration Service

Representatives

Siobhan Maguire BL instructed by Meghan McSweeney Mason Hayes and Curran LLP

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00048631-001

14/02/2022

This complaint concerns one of three related complaints and three related complainants.

The alleged incident of discrimination occurred on the 6th of October 2021 when the Complainant’s father (who brought ADJ-00037292) her mother (who brought complaint ADJ-00037294) and the Complainant attended the Respondent civil registration office to register her recent birth.

This case is brought by the Complainant’s parents on her behalf.

A requirement for adults to wear masks indoors was still in effect due to the covid-19 pandemic and the Complainant’s parents did not wear a mask.

As the case concerned a minor I have determined that the appropriate course of action is to anonymise the Complainant’s family.

The Complainant’s parents attended the hearing and both gave evidence under affirmation. They submitted a written statement beforehand.

They alleged that they were discriminated against on the basis of disability.

The Complainant’s father has outlined an interpretation of the Equal Status Acts which argues that disability arose at the moment in which he was asked to put on a mask.

The Complainant’s parents further argue that the Respondent was entirely wrong to request that they provide details of a disability which would not allow them to wear a mask as this related to private medical data.

The Respondent submitted detailed written submissions and a number of witnesses gave evidence under affirmation.

They point out that the Complainant’s parents still received the services they sought to obtain on the day in question, that is her birth cert. Her father was simply served in his car rather than in the building to facilitate his refusal to wear a mask. Ultimately the Respondent met any obligation to provide the Complainant with reasonable accommodation even though no such obligation existed.

Mr Thomas Gannon gave evidence of first meeting the Complainant’s parents in the lobby of the building and telling them that they needed to put on a mask. Ms Orla Conlon gave evidence of her being called down to assist with the situation and then assisting the Complainant’s father with later queries by email.  Mr Charlie McGuinness gave evidence of the Respondent’s policy and his interaction with the Complainant’s parents on the 6th of October.

Nearly all of the facts in this case are agreed.

The Complainant was brought by her parents to Respondent offices to register for an official document on the 6th of October 2021.

Neither of her parents were wearing a face mask. When they arrived into the Respondent’s office, contained within a larger public service complex, they were stopped and asked to put on a mask. Three separate officials of the Respondent asked the Complainant’s parents to either put on a mask or leave.

The Complainant’s parents did not draw the attention of the Respondent to any disability which would prevent them from wearing a face mask.

The Complainant’s father then suggested that he be served from outside in his car. The Respondent’s employees facilitated this. The Complainant’s parents waited in their car and staff went outside to then and provided them with forms. There was some follow up emails and the relevant documentation was issued to the Complainant’s father.

I can see no stateable case of discrimination pertaining to the Complainant arising from this set of facts.

I find that the above complaint is not well founded.