ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00036779
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A complainant | A regulator |
Representatives | Self-represented | Counsel instructed by solicitor |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00048021-001 | 06/01/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/02/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Procedure:
On the 6th January 2022, the complainant referred a complaint pursuant to the Equal Status Act. The complaint was scheduled for adjudication on the 7th February 2023.
This case involves sensitive medical information pertaining to the complainant. The decision is, therefore, anonymised. For this reason, I have taken the additional step of anonymising the identities of the representatives of the respondent.
In accordance with section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The complainant asserted that she was discriminated against and harassed on grounds of gender, race and disability. The respondent denies the claims. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant made a complaint to the respondent regulator following her interactions with the doctor and the hospital. The complainant outlined that she was discriminated by the respondent and allowed to be harassed. This included the contents of the doctor’s submissions to the regulator, that were shared with the complainant as part of the statutory process. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent denies the claim of discrimination and harassment. It raised time points, and that the complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination. It submits that the regulator does not provide a service within the ambit of the Equal Status Act. |
Findings and Conclusions:
This complaint was heard at adjudication in the afternoon of the 7th February 2023. The hearing took place remotely. It took place after the hearing in ADJ-00035976. I readily appreciate that this matter addresses very distressing events for the complainant. During the hearing in the afternoon, the complainant again became distressed. This took the form of the complainant becoming very abusive to the other parties present. It involved the complainant swearing at the other parties, for example calling people ‘a f****** c***’. I took the hearing as far as it could go. I now issue substantive findings on the basis of what was adduced at the hearing and the submissions and documentary evidence submitted. In 2021, the respondent dealt with complainant’s complaint regarding the professional practice of the doctor. The respondent concluded that there was not sufficient cause to warrant further action. The respondent initiated and conducted a statutory investigation, per the relevant statutes. It is entitled to avail of section 14(1) and its actions do not constitute discrimination per the Equal Status Act. The complainant objects to the doctor’s submission as part of the statutory process. I have addressed the complaint against the doctor in ADJ-00035976. The regulator respondent received and circulated the doctor’s submission as part of the exercise of its statutory function. Even if it were that the submission constituted harassment, that would be a claim against the author of the document and not the statutory body who received it. This aspect of the claim also falls within the ambit of section 14(1). For completeness, I also find that the complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination in respect of the actions of the respondent regulator. |
Decision:
Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2018 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.
CA-00048021-001 For the above reasons, I decide that the respondent did not discriminate against the complainant. |
Dated: 29th June 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Key Words:
Equal Status Act / section 14 |