Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Complainant

Respondent

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00051770-001

20/07/2022

The Complainant is seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, and has submitted that she was discriminated  against on the grounds of disability and in the provisions of goods/services when she was treated differently to other parents in relation to access to the parents association meetings and her engagement with the Respondent. (CA- 00051770-001)

The Complainant represented herself and gave evidence under oath and has provided detailed written submissions.

The Complainant applied to join the Respondents parent council on or about March 2021 and ultimately attended her first meeting on the 8th February 2022 almost a year after originally applying. The Complainant attended four parent council meetings before she felt she had to resign. The Complainant found the last two meetings, which were in person, on the 25th April 2022 and 23rd May 2022  to be hostile, intimidating and humiliating. The Complainant submitted this treatment was due to her disability.

The Complainant ultimately resigned from the parents council on the 24th May 2022. The Complainant escalated her Complaint to the appropriate Education and Training Board (ETB). The Complainant submitted that the Respondent, the parents council and the relevant ETB dealt with her complaint of discrimination in a proper procedural manner and believed she was discriminated against her by everyone until the complaint was lodged with the Workplace Relations Commission.

The Complainant is not seeking any financial compensation but a recognition of the discrimination she encountered due to her disability

This Complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on the 20th July 2022.

The Principal of the Respondent institution was in attendance along with two members of the ETB and gave evidence under oath and have provided detailed written submissions.

The Respondent, at the outset, wished to acknowledge that the Respondent is a valued parent and fully respect the role that parents have along with the parents association and council in supporting the whole school community.

However, the Respondent submitted that they were not the correct Respondent in this claim. Parents associations/councils are formed in accordance with Section 26 of the Education Act, 1998. The Respondent does not govern or instruct the parents association/council but works in partnership with them.  The National Parents Association for the ETBs informed the Complainant that they did not have a  formal complaints procedure and that a complaint of this nature should be resolved at a local level.

Notwithstanding the Respondents position in relation to who is the correct Respondent, the Respondent submitted that the function of the Parents Association is not to provide goods and services. Section 21 of the Equal Status Act prohibits discrimination in the provision of goods and services, the provision of accommodation and access to education on any of the established grounds which includes disability. The Respondent submitted that the Complainants main point of discrimination is centred around her delayed access and her experience of membership of the Parents Association of the Respondents institution. The Respondent apologised for the aforesaid delay and said this occurred due to administrative errors along with the background of the pandemic.

The Respondent submitted that they were not aware that the Complainant had a disability until she informed them and her difficulty in accessing  the parents association meetings preceded the point that they became aware.

The Respondent submitted that the Complaint has not placed her claim against the correct Respondent , nor has the Complainant  provided facts from which a prima facie case of discrimination under the Equal Status Act can be established.

In the circumstances of this matter, I have carefully listened to the evidence tendered in the course of this hearing by both parties.

In the circumstances of this matter, I have taken the time to carefully review all the evidence both written and oral.  I have noted the respective position of the parties.   I am not required to provide a line for line rebuttal of the evidence and submissions that I have rejected or deemed superfluous to the main findings. In that regard,  I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held “”.

Notwithstanding the application that this Complaint is made against the wrong Respondent, I must decide, based on the documentation submitted and the evidence adduced at the hearing, whether or not, the Respondent discriminated against the Complainant on grounds of disability in terms of sections 3(2) of the Equal Status Acts, 2000-2015.

Section 3(1) provides, inter alia, that discrimination shall be taken to occur where:

(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) (in this Act referred to as the ‘‘discriminatory grounds)’’

Section 3(2)(g) provides that: as between any two persons, the discriminatory ground of disability is,

(g)  that one is a person with a disability and the other either is not or is a person with a different disability (the “disability ground”),

Section 38A (1) provides

" 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."

Therefore, the Complainant must first establish a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment and it is only when a prima facie case has been established that the burden of proof shifts to the Respondent to rebut the presumption of discrimination.

It is submitted by the Complainant that she is a person with a disability for the purposes of the Act.   Section 2 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 defines “disability”, inter alia, as meaning “a condition, disease, or illness, which affects a person’s thought processes, perception of reality, emotions, or judgement or which results in disturbed behaviour….”. The Complainant stated  in the course of the hearing of this matter that she was suffering from a degenerative disease that affected her left ankle. The Complainant did not provide any information in relation to her medical condition to the Respondent or to the WRC or of the impact of such a diagnosis on her well being.

Based on the medical evidence adduced at this hearing, I cannot, due to a lack of specific information find that the Complainant is suffering from a disability.  Furthermore, even if the Complainant had provided medical information to me that would have satisfied the legal definition of a disability, the Respondent could not have discriminated against her on the grounds of that disability because they were not informed of it at the material time.  

For the avoidance of doubt I have considered the nature of the alleged discrimination.

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

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

(a) on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as ‘‘the discriminatory grounds’’) which exists at present or previously existed but no longer exists or may exist in the future, or which is imputed to the person concerned, a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated,

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

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.

(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.

It is well-established law that the Complainant is required to present, in the first instance, facts from which it can be inferred that he was treated less favourably than another person, is, has been, or would be treated on the basis of one or more of the nine discriminatory grounds cited. 

In Southern Health Board v Mitchell the Labour Court stated:

“  The first requirement is that the Complainant must establish facts from which it may

    be presumed that the principle of equal treatment has not been applied to them. This

    indicates that a Complainant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, the primary

    facts on which they rely in seeking to raise a presumption of unlawful discrimination.

    It is only if those primary factors establish to the satisfaction of the Court, and they are        

   regarded by the Court as being of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of

    discrimination, that the onus shifts to the Respondent to prove that there is no

    infringement of the principle of equal treatment.”

 In the case of Arturs Val Peters v Melbury Developments Ltd 21 (2010) ELR 64 the Court stated:

“This requires that the Complainant must first establish facts from which discrimination may be inferred. What those facts will vary from case to case and there is no closed categories of facts which can be relied upon. All that is required is that they must be of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination. However, they must be established as facts on credible evidence. Mere speculation or assertions, unsupported by evidence, cannot be elevated to a factual basis upon which an inference of discrimination can be drawn”

Having carefully considered the evidence of the Complainant along with the documentation  submitted to the WRC, I find that the complainant has failed to set out any facts and or evidence  that could lead me to conclude she has established a prima facia case of discrimination on grounds of a disability.

I find the Complaint (CA- 00051770-001) made pursuant to Section 21 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, is not well founded.

Disability