Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Farhan  Jaweed

Abra Ka Babra

Representatives

  n/a

 n/a

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00052428-001

26/08/2022

The Complainant is seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 of the Equal Status Act , 2000, and has submitted that he was discriminated  against on the grounds of his civil status, race  and in the provisions of goods/services when he was refused service by the Respondent. (CA- 00052428-001)

The Complainant attended and gave evidence under oath.

The Complainant stated that he had been a customer of the Respondent for approximately ten years an would order food at least twice a week. On or about the 22nd May  2022 the Complainant stated he had ordered food for delivery. When he received the delivery  it was not correct and he returned same and the Respondent then delivered the correct order.

However, the following day when placing an order with the Respondent, the Complainant was informed that he was being refused service.

The Complainant submitted that the Respondent has refused him service without any reason and he feels insulted by the behaviour of the Respondent,

The Complainant completed the ES1 form on the 11th July 2022.

This Complaint was received by the  Workplace Relations Commission on the 26th August 2022.

The manager/supervisor of the Respondent whose premises are situate at Blanchardstown attended and gave evidence under oath.

The Respondent gave a different version of the events that occurred on or about the 22nd of May 2022. In summary, the Respondent confirmed he had informed his staff to refuse the Complainant service due to his abusive and insulting behaviour over the phone and in person.

The Respondent completed the ES2 form on the 27th July 2022.

It is the Respondents position that they had the right to refuses service to the  Complainant due to his behaviour and for the safety and wellbeing of his employees.

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

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 together with the documentation he 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 he has established a prima facia case of discrimination on the alleged grounds.

I find the Complaint (CA- 000524286-001) made pursuant to Section 21 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, is not well founded.