Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Karl  Woods

Lantern Events Limited

Representatives

  In person

Respondent Principal

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00047618-001

08/12/2021

This complaint concerns alleged discrimination on the grounds of disability. The issue concerns the complainant and his partner who wished to attend a concert on 27th October 2021. The complainant has certain physical limitations as a result of a life injury and is unable to stand for long periods of time. His partner has mobility issues and is on crutches. The complainant does not use crutches. The complainant’s partner has also submitted a separate complaint in relation to the same incident. (Adjudication Reference ADJ-00036504 refers) and a separate decision will issue in respect of that complaint.

In relation to the couple’s attendance at the concert, the complainant’s partner had contacted the respondent by email outlining their difficulties in standing for long periods and had requested seating. There was no response to this email and the complainant’s partner again sent an email on 1st October 2021 and did not receive a reply. A telephone call between the complainant’s partner and the respondent did not resolve the issue and the couple’s request for seating was not facilitated and they were unable to attend the concert.

The complainant’s partner wrote to the respondent by registered letter dated 28th October 2021 outlining her dissatisfaction with how she and the complainant had been treated and her intentions to refer the matter to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) in respect of the issue and there was no response to this letter. The matter was referred to the WRC on 8th December 2021.

A virtual hearing of the complaint took place using the Webex platform on 1st September 2022. At the hearing it was clarified and agreed that the correct name of the respondent is Lantern Events Limited. This decision reflects the correct name of the respondent.

The complainant was represented by his partner at the adjudication hearing. The complainant’s partner outlined that she and the complainant wanted to attend a concert on 27th October 2021 and informed the respondent of their mobility issues and their need to sit down at the concert by email dated 16th September 2021. The complainant’s partner stated that she did not receive a reply to this email. The complainant’s partner stated that she then phoned the respondent and spoke to a lady on the telephone and while the phone was unmuted, the lady informed a colleague about the disability issue and if there was any possibility that they could be facilitated and the person speaking to the lady simply said, No. The complainant’s partner stated that it was the respondent principal who had refused to provide any accommodation to her and the complainant.

The complainant’s partner stated that in an attempt to resolve the issue, she followed up with the respondent by sending another email on 1st October 2021 and again received no response.

The complainant was dissatisfied with how he had been treated by the respondent and the lack of engagement on the respondent’s part in attempting to resolve the issue. The complainant was aware that there were seats at the venue but that these seats were in booths that had three steps in order to enter the booths and the respondent would not allow the complainant and his partner to avail of these seats. The complainant stated that the respondent repeatedly referred to him and his partner as a “liability” and that they would not be allowed to enter the booths as he and his partner were both on crutches and the Insurance Company would not permit it. The complainant’s partner clarified that she uses crutches, but the complainant does not and even if carers were needed to attend with them, these options were not explored. The complainant’ partner stated that she and the complainant felt discriminated against by the actions of the respondent and being described as a liability was very offensive to both of them.

The complainant’s partner wrote to the respondent by registered letter on 28th October 2021 confirming her intentions to refer the matter to the WRC and received no response. The complaint was submitted to the WRC on 8th December 2021.

The respondent principal attended the adjudication hearing. In his verbal submission the respondent stated that he was honestly of the view that both the complainant and his partner were on crutches and that it was for insurance reasons that they would not be permitted to take seats in the booths because of the requirement to climb three steps up into the booths. The respondent stated that his use of the word liability referred to insurance issues and his knowledge relating to his insurers and the issues they would have in relation to the complainant and his partner accessing the booths. The respondent acknowledged that he did not reply to the emails sent to him but felt that he was not in a position to resolve the situation at the time. The respondent stated that he himself was aware of orthopaedic issues and would never intentionally discriminate against anyone.

There is no factual dispute between the parties in relation to the events that took place prior to the concert and the fact that the complainant and his partner were unable to attend due to their mobility issues and the inability of the respondent to accommodate their request for seating.

Both parties gave oral submissions at the adjudication hearing and the complainant’s partner outlined that the lack of support and/or accommodation from the respondent had left her and the complainant feeling that they had been discriminated against as a result of their individual disabilities.

I note that the respondent principal was genuinely upset at the adjudication hearing in relation to the allegations of discrimination and that if discrimination had occurred, he said it had not been his intention to do so as he himself had personal knowledge of orthopaedic issues and would never knowingly discriminate against another individual.

The Applicable Law

Section 3 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 provides as follows:

3(1) For the purposes of this Act discrimination shall be taken to occur—

(a) where a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) or, if appropriate, subsection (3B), (in this Act referred to as the ‘discriminatory grounds’) which—

(i) exists,

(ii) existed but no longer exists,

(iii) may exist in the future, or

(iv) is imputed to the person concerned,

Section 4 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 provides as follows:

4(1) For the purposes of this Act discrimination includes a refusal or failure by the provider of a service to do all that is reasonable to accommodate the needs of a person with a disability by providing special treatment or facilities, if without such special treatment or facilities it would be impossible or unduly difficult for the person to avail himself or herself of the service.

(2) A refusal or failure to provide the special treatment or facilities to which subsection (1) refers shall not be deemed reasonable unless such provision would give rise to a cost, other than a nominal cost, to the provider of the service in question.

(3) A refusal or failure to provide the special treatment or facilities to which subsection (1) refers does not constitute discrimination if, by virtue of another provision of this Act, a refusal or failure to provide the service in question to that person would not constitute discrimination.

(4) Where a person has a disability that, in the circumstances, could cause harm to the person or to others, treating the person differently to the extent reasonably necessary to prevent such harm does not constitute discrimination.

(5) This section is without prejudice to the provisions of sections 7(2)(a), 9(a) and 15(2)(g) of the Education Act, 1998, in so far as they relate to functions of the Minister for Education and Science, recognised schools and boards of management in regard to students with a disability.

Burden of Proof

Section 38A of the Equal Status Act, 2000 provides as follows:

38A (1) Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a person from which it may be presumed that prohibited conduct has occurred in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.

(2) This section is without prejudice to any other enactment or rule of law in relation to the burden of proof in any proceedings which may be more favourable to the person.

(3) Where, in any proceedings arising from a reference of a matter by the Authority to the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission under section 23(1), facts are established by or on behalf of the Authority from which it may be presumed that prohibited conduct or a contravention mentioned in that provision has occurred, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.

I fully accept that it may not have been the intention of the respondent to discriminate against the complainant and his partner, however, discrimination occurs when an individual is treated less favourably than another person on the basis of a particular characteristic, in this case due to the existence of a disability.

In advance of purchasing tickets for the concert, the complainant’s partner had indicated to the respondent that she and the complainant each had a disability and needed to sit down for the duration of the concert. The emails submitted by the complainant’s partner seeking accommodation from the respondent were not responded to and a telephone conversation did not resolve the matter. The respondent stated that he could not let the complainant and his partner use the seated booths as there was three steps up into each booth and this represented an insurance risk in circumstances where both the complainant and his partner were on crutches. The respondent confirmed that his references to the complainant and his partner being a “liability” related to the insurance implications of people on crutches climbing the steps into the booths.

The complainant’s partner clarified that only she uses crutches and that the complainant could have helped her on the steps, as the complainant’s issues were simply that he cannot stand for long periods. In addition, if the respondent was of the opinion that both were on crutches, it would have been possible for them to have two additional people with them as carers but none of these possibilities were discussed as the respondent did not engage as he felt a solution was not possible. In the complainant’s view, the respondent was not interested in resolving the matter as he was preoccupied with a previous issue where someone had fallen, and this was going to “cost a fortune” in compensation and/or insurance premia and he was not willing to risk a reoccurrence of that situation.

It is unfortunate that the respondent did not engage with the complainant and his partner on resolving this issue as it seems that a solution could have been found, as was accepted by the respondent at the adjudication hearing. If the issue of the crutches had been clarified or if the respondent had engaged with the complainant and her partner, matters may well have been resolved. This was not done at the time as the respondent felt that the complainant and her partner were hostile towards him, and he felt the matter could not be resolved.

In all of the circumstances of the complaint, I note the bona fides of both parties, however I find that the complainant and her partner were treated less favourably as a result of their disabilities and the respondent did not provide reasonable accommodation to them so as to facilitate their attendance at the concert. Accordingly, the complaint of discrimination succeeds.

Having considered the submissions of both parties, I find that the within complaint (CA-00047618-001) is well founded. The respondent is directed to pay the complainant compensation in the sum of €3,000.00

Discrimination, Disability, reasonable accommodation