ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00034369
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Mark J. Savage | Google Ireland Holdings Unlimited Company |
Representatives | Self-represented | A&L Goodbody Solicitors |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00045365-001 | 26/07/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/07/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Procedure:
On the 26th July 2021, the complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to the Equal Status Act. The complaint was scheduled for adjudication on the 5th July 2022.
The complainant attended the adjudication. The respondent was represented by A&L Goodbody Solicitors. This case was heard with ADJ-00034268.
In accordance with section25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 following 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.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant asserts that he was discriminated against by the respondent on grounds of religion. He outlined that the service he sought was a takedown request made in respect of newspaper articles about the complainant. He cited a comparator, who had information taken down from the search engine. The complainant outlined that he was entitled to take these proceedings against this respondent on grounds of it being a joint tortfeasor and concurrent wrongdoing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submitted that the complaint was lodged against the wrong entity. The correct entity was Google LLC, and this was clear to the complainant in the process around his takedown request. It was also clear to the complainant in other proceedings he has taken, including against Google LLC. |
Findings and Conclusions:
On the 21st November 2020, the complainant submitted the takedown request in respect of two newspaper articles. There followed email exchanges where the complainant established that he had the benefit of EU data protection law. It was indicated to the complainant that his takedown request would not be acceded to on grounds of the balancing of rights, including public interest. The respondent outlined that the entity that operates Google Search and the related takedown service is Google LLC, and not the respondent. It submits that the proceedings should be dismissed. In reply, the complainant submitted that the respondent was a joint tortfeasor and that this was concurrent wrongdoing. Having considered the submissions of the parties, I find that the complaint should be dismissed as the complainant has not asserted any discriminatory act against the respondent. He asserts that a separate entity discriminated against him, but that he is entitled to take these proceedings against this respondent. The choice of respondent was not an error on the complainant’s part, but his deliberate choice. At the hearing, the parties referred to previous proceedings at the Workplace Relations Commission, the Circuit Court and the High Court. The complainant refers to concepts from the law of tort: joint tortfeasors and concurrent wrongdoing. These developed to address circumstances where two parties had contributed to the same damage to the injured party. Even if these concepts could be read across to anti-discrimination law, it must be proven that a party committed a contravention for any liability to be attached to them. These concepts have no application in this case as the respondent had no role in the alleged discrimination. Section 42 of the Equal Status Act provides for vicarious liability. I find that the respondent is not vicariously liable for the actions of Google LLC as it was not its agent or employee. I find that the complainant has not advanced any basis for this respondent being responsible for any act the complainant says was discriminatory. I formally find that the complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination against the respondent. |
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-00045365-001 I decide that the complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination against the respondent, and I dismiss the complaint |
Dated: 30th May 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Key Words:
Equal Status Act / vicarious liability |