Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mary Catherine Murray

Clare Connolly, Estate Agent

Representatives

Self-represented 

Sherwin O’Riordan Solicitors

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00046456-001

29/09/2021

Ms Murray’s complaint is that she was discriminated against when she was not offered an apartment which Ms Connolly advertised for rent in June 2021.  Correspondence produced in evidence at the hearing shows the following chronology of events leading to Ms Murray submitting a complaint to the WRC on October 27th 2021:

On Monday, June 7th 2021, Ms Murray replied to an ad on Daft.ie for a one-bedroom apartment for rent for €1,975 per month. 

An email from Ms Connolly to Ms Murray the following day shows that she asked Ms Murray if she was free to view the apartment on Thursday, June 10th or Friday June 11th.

Ms Connolly’s written submission states that her client liaison manager showed Ms Murray the apartment on Thursday, June 10th.  At 16.08 that day, Ms Murray sent an email to Ms Connolly and offered to rent the apartment for €1,900 per month.  Ms Connolly replied at 16.50, thanking Ms Murray for her offer and telling her that she would convey this to the owner and would send her documentation to him when she received it.

Ms Connolly’s submission states that her client liaison manager showed a couple the apartment on Friday, June 11th.

On Monday, June 14th at 10.33, Ms Murray sent Ms Connolly a letter from a HR manager where she works, confirming her status as a permanent employee.  She said that she had a letter from her bank and a reference from her current landlord which would follow.  At 11.13, she sent the reference from her landlord to Ms Murray. 

On Tuesday, June 15th, Ms Connolly sent an email to Ms Murray asking her to send on her letter from her bank so that she could email it to the landlord.  Ms Murray replied at 11.28 the following day saying, “It will come over today.”  At 17.51, Ms Murray sent another email to Ms Connolly in which she said that she had received an email from her bank manager apologising for the delay with her letter and saying that he would have it for her the next day.

It seems that Ms Murray sent the bank reference to Ms Connolly on Thursday, June 17th, because she sent an email on Friday the 18th, checking that Ms Connolly received the reference.  The reference produced in evidence simply states that Ms Murray has an account with the bank from a certain date and that it has been operated in order at all times.  Ms Connolly replied telling Ms Murray that the landlord will ask for proof of funds and she asked Ms Murray to submit two recent payslips.  Ms Murray replied that her payslips were not easy to access and that she would go back to her bank and that she would contact Ms Connolly again on Monday.  Ms Connolly replied and said that she would wait to hear from Ms Murray on Monday.

On Sunday, June 20th however, Ms Connolly sent an email to Ms Murray and said that the landlord had decided to rent the apartment to the couple who viewed it on June 11th.

An email from Ms Murray to Ms Connolly on Wednesday, June 23rd shows that they spoke on the telephone on Monday, June 21st.  In her email, Ms Murray asked Ms Connolly to “Please keep me in mind if something comes up in Ballsbridge on your books.”

On October 27th 2021, Ms Murray sent a copy of an ES1 form dated August 20th 2021 as part of her complaint of discrimination to the WRC.  She included a copy of a certificate of posting which appears to indicate that the ES1 form was posted to Ms Connolly on August 25th.

Ms Murray claims that, in breach of section 3 of the Equal Status Act 2000, she was discriminated against on the ground of her civil status, her age and her gender.  She also claims that she was harassed by Ms Connolly “in the form of spoken words on the phone.”    

After she viewed the apartment in June 2021, Ms Murray said that she phoned Ms Connolly and she made an offer for the rent of €1,900 per month.  She said that she told Ms Connolly that she would look after the apartment and that she was sorry to see that the previous tenants had not done so.  She said that an earlier advertisement for the property had listed it for €1,975 per month.  She said that she told Ms Connolly that she had a reference from her current landlady, a letter from her employer and a letter from her bank ready to send to her.  On June 17th, Ms Murray said that Ms Connolly phoned her and asked for copies of bank statements.  She said that she asked her bank manager to lodge the equivalent of a year’s rent into a specific bank account. 

On Monday, June 21st, Ms Murray said that Ms Connolly phoned her and told her that she wasn’t being considered for the apartment.  She claimed Ms Connolly told her that the owner thought that it would be more suitable for a couple and that he was concerned about Ms Murray’s age and wanted someone living there around his own age.  Ms Murray also alleged that Ms Connolly said that the owner was concerned that she would make the apartment her home.

On August 25th 2021, Ms Murray said that she sent an ES1 form to Ms Connolly, setting out her belief that she had been discriminated against when she was not offered the apartment for rent.  She requested information as follows:

1.       Why she was discriminated on the family status ground, when Ms Connolly said that the owner of the apartment decided that it was more suitable for a couple;

2.       Why she was discriminated against ground of age, as Ms Connolly said that the owner was concerned about her reaching retirement age;

3.      Why she was discriminated against on the gender ground, because the owner had indicated that he was concerned that Ms Murray would make the apartment her home.  She said that women are perceived as concerning themselves with home-making.

Cross-examining of Ms Murray by Mr O’Riordan

Ms Murray’s evidence is that she sent the ES1 form to Ms Connolly on August 25th 2021.  She said that she accepts that this is four days after the time limit of two months within which to submit an ES1 form to a respondent.  She said that she phoned a supervisor in the adjudication section of the WRC about this and that she was advised to submit her complaint.

Mr O’Riordan asked Ms Murray what exactly she sent to Ms Connolly on August 25th.  She replied that she sent the ES1 form.  However, Mr O’Riordan said that Ms Connolly will say that she received the ES1 form on September 27th.  Mr O’Riordan pointed out that no documents were lodged with the WRC until October 27th 2021.

Mr O’Riordan asked Ms Murray about her statement that she made an offer of the full amount of the rent.  She said that she made an offer of the full rent of €1,900.  Mr O’Riordan said that Ms Connolly’s position is that the rent was €1,975.  Ms Murray said that there were several advertisements for the apartment, and that at one stage, the rent was €2,500.

Ms Murray said that she believes that Ms Connolly conveyed to her what the landlord said about offering the apartment to a couple.  Mr O’Riordan said that Ms Connolly’s position is that the landlord said that a two-income tenancy was more suitable.

Mr O’Riordan submitted that Ms Murray sent the notification of her intention to make a complaint of discrimination to Ms Connolly outside the time limit of two months which is specified at section 21 of the Equal Status Act.  While the proof of postage appears to indicate that the notification, an ES1 form, was sent to Ms Connolly on August 25th 2021, Ms Connolly’s evidence is that she received the form on September 27th.

Mr O’Riordan referred to the decision of my colleague, Orla Jones, in September 2017 in a case between Dona Sfar and the Abbey Court Hostel[1].  Ms Sfar hand-delivered a letter to the respondent in that case within the two-month time limit, but the ES1 form was sent outside that time limit. 

Mr O’Riordan submitted that Ms Murray sent the ES1 form to Ms Connolly on September 27th 2021, and not August 25th, and that her complaint is therefore outside the time limit for submitting a notification to the respondent.

In her evidence, Ms Connolly said that the rent for the apartment that Ms Murray looked at in June 2021 was always €1,975.  She said that Ms Murray offered €1,900 and the couple to whom the landlord decided to offer the apartment offered the asking price.  She said that the landlord decided that “two incomes was better than one.”  She also said that the couple produced the documents that were required and that she acted on the instruction of the landlord and offered the apartment to them.

Time Limit for Notifying the Respondent of a Complaint of Discrimination

Ms Connolly informed Ms Murray on June 20th 2021 that the landlord decided to rent the apartment to another party.  I accept that, when Ms Murray sent the ES1 form to Ms Connolly on August 25th 2021, the time limit of two months had expired.  By way of explanation, Ms Murray said that she spent some time trying to find out who the landlord was, and she submitted her ES1 form four days after the expiry of the two-month time limit.  I am not entirely satisfied that this amounts to “reasonable cause” as set out at section 21(3)(a)(i) of the Equal Status Act; however, as Ms Murray claims that she posted the form to Ms Connolly just four days after the expiry of the two-month time limit, I have decided to proceed with a consideration of her complaint.

Claim of Discrimination

Ms Murray’s case is that she was discriminated against on the ground of her age because the letter from her bank manager showed the date that she opened her bank account.  She claims that Ms Connolly said that one of the reasons she was not chosen as a tenant was because she was approaching retirement age.  However, Ms Murray said that she never spoke about retirement to Ms Connolly.  She said that she believes that the property owner and Ms Connolly reached conclusions, based on the letter from her bank manager.

Ms Murray claims that she was discriminated against on the ground of her gender, because she said that she would look after the apartment and she paid particular attention to the workings of the oven, because she likes baking.  She claims that Ms Connolly interpreted this negatively, and she does not believe that a prospective male tenant would have been discriminated against in this way.

Ms Murray claims that, by offering the apartment to a couple, she has been discriminated against as a single person.  She said that, if this view was prevalent among property-owners, she would never find a place to live, despite being able to fulfil all other reasonable criteria.

Findings

It is clear from the evidence of both parties that Ms Murray offered rent of €1,900 on a property that was advertised for €1,975.  It is also clear that Ms Murray failed to provide the standard evidence of proof of funds in the form of a bank statement or a payslip.  The letter that she provided on June 18th was simply a letter from her bank manager confirming that she had an account which was “in good order.”  By that date, the other party, a couple, who looked at the apartment on June 11th, had provided the references that were requested and they had agreed to pay the asking price for the rent.

No evidence was submitted by Ms Murray that the couple who rented the apartment were younger than her or that the landlord wanted to rent it to a young person.  Ms Murray’s evidence that she discussed her interest in baking with Ms Connolly does not support an argument of discrimination on the gender ground.  In any event, I accept Ms Connolly’s evidence that there was no discussion about baking.

I accept that a perception of bias may be implied by the fact that the landlord decided to rent the apartment to a couple with two incomes.  From the landlord’s perspective, two incomes may provide more financial security than one and it also means that the financial burden on the tenants is lessened.  On the other hand, a single middle-aged woman with a government job would be considered an ideal tenant for most landlords.  Ms Murray provided a letter from her current landlady that she had been a tenant in an apartment on her own account for 18 years, and this must have impressed Ms Connolly, because, when she received this evidence, she pursued Ms Murray for proof of her income.  Unlike the couple who viewed the apartment on June 11th, Ms Murray had not provided proof of her income when Ms Connolly spoke to the landlord on June 19th 2021.  I am satisfied that, for this reason, and because she did not offer the full amount of the rent that was asked, she was not offered the apartment.

I have considered Ms Murray’s evidence and the documents she submitted before the hearing of this complaint on August 30th 2022.  It is my view that the facts she relies on to demonstrate that she was discriminated against are insufficient to lead me to presume that discrimination occurred.  I decide therefore, that her complaint is not well-founded.

Discrimination, gender, age, family status