Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Paul  Taaffe

Dkit Sport Gym

Representatives

  N/A

Catherine Needham BL instructed by Alan Raftery Solicitor

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00048639-001

15/02/2022

The Complainant was a member of the Respondent gym. On one occasion in December 2021 he was turned away from the gym because he did not have a covid vaccine certificate. He submitted a complaint under the Equal Status Acts on 15th of February 2021 alleging that the Respondent had discriminated against him by reason of his religion.

A remote hearing was held on the 7th of February 2022 to consider the Complaint.

The Complainant attended the hearing and gave evidence under affirmation.

The Respondent was represented by Catherine Needham BL instructed by Alan Raftery Solicitor.

Derek Anderson the Respondent’s Operations & Finance Director attended the hearing and gave evidence under affirmation.

Gerard Morgan the Respondent’s Group Health and Safety Manager attended the hearing and gave evidence under affirmation.

Kyle McGee the Respondent’s Gym Manager attended the hearing and gave evidence under affirmation.

Each witness was cross examined by the other party.

The Complainant attended the Respondent gym on the 16th of December 2021.

When he arrived to the gym he was told he needed to show his Covid-19 vaccination certificate or he could not train that day. The Complainant asked to speak to the manager who was Mr McGee. Mr McGee came to reception and confirmed he could not let him in without the covid-19 pass. He indicated that he would not engage in further discussion the matter and that he was just doing his job and enforcing the law. After the Complainant continued to attempt to explain his position Mr McGee ended the conversation.

The Complainant was upset by this and felt discriminated against because of his medical status. He was not able to train that day which is something he feels is very important to maintain his health. He had paid his membership at the start of December so he thought he couldn’t get it back. He was not alerted to any potential for refund. He was not on notice of the vaccine requirement.

The Complainant accepts that the Respondent may have been implementing a policy required by legislation however he is of the view that this legislation was unconstitutional and that the Respondent’s obligation was to refuse to follow that legislation or to challenge it in the courts. His relationship was with the Respondent and not the government.

I asked the Complainant what this matter had to do with his religion. He explained that he is Catholic though he doesn’t take guidance from the church. He believes vaccines are made from aborted foetuses which are dissected in a satanic manner and does not wish to put something like that in his body.

The Respondent followed the public health guidance and laws for the period that they applied. For approximately 7 weeks in late 2021 to early 2022 they were required to only allow persons with the appropriate vaccine certificates attend the gym.

Customers who didn’t have a vaccine certificate were invited to freeze their membership for that period or get refunded for the months they could not train. There were notices outside the door and on facebook.

On the 16th of December Mr McGee dealt with the Complainant in an entirely polite and respectful manner. He properly enforced the policy the gym was required to implement.

The Respondent considers the Complainant’s claim frivolous and vexatious.  He has not advanced any case of discrimination as envisaged by the Equal Status Acts.

For much of the Complainant’s case he argued that the Respondent had discriminated against him by reason of his “medical status” which I understand to be a reference to the fact that he did not get the Covid-19 vaccine.

Sections 3 and 4 of the Equal Status Acts outlaw discrimination of persons by reference to certain specific grounds. Choosing whether or not to get a vaccine is not one of these.  

The Complainant has argued that his choice not to get vaccinated was related to his religion.

Section 3.2.(e) outlines that religious discrimination occurs against a person that one has a different religious belief from the other, or that one has a religious belief and the other has not (the “religion ground”).

The Complainant is a Catholic, but he has not drawn my attention to any prohibition on Catholics attending the gym that day nor to any comparator of a different or no religion who was allowed to attend when the Complainant was refused.

He instead advanced a case, totally without any medical evidence, that the covid-19 vaccine was made from dissected foetuses and was satanic. As a result of this belief the Complainant felt taking the vaccine would incompatible with his religion.

While I believe that this feeling was genuinely held that does not make it factual or inherently related to the Complainant’s Catholicism. As such I do not see how it can form the basis for a case of religious discrimination.    

I decide that the Respondent did not engage in prohibited conduct in respect of the Complainant.

Covid-19 Vaccine