Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Dr. Jacqueline  Elliott

Flexiteam Ltd.

Representatives

  Self Represented

General Manager

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00056096-001

14/04/2023

The Complainant is a disabled person and uses a wheelchair for mobility. She booked a hotel room for herself and her daughter, who is autistic. and required special facilities in her room due to her disability. The Hotel agent confirmed the required facilities in a booking confirmation form, but when the Complainant arrived at the hotel she was not able to access or use the bathroom or washing facilities in her room and access to other facilities in the Hotel were ether blocked or required people or things to be moved to give her access. The Complainant alleged she was discriminated due to her disability. The complaint was taken against Killaloe Hotel and Spa but the Respondent advised the Hearing the legal entity was Flexiteam Ltd and the Complainant and Respondent agreed to this change of name for the Respondent. 

The Complainant booked a room on January 22nd 2023 and received confirmation of room booking from Pigsback.com, the hotel agent, including requirements for an accessible room.

The Complainant phoned the hotel the day before her booking to confirm the confirmation received  re accessible room and if possible, could they also accommodate she and her daughter arriving half an hour earlier to set up for a Zoom meeting that had been brought forward. This was granted and the Complainant was reassured that the room was available for that time and was accessible.

On any reading of the booking request and confirmation received on behalf of the Hotel (1 full time wheelchair user was specified in the booking) you would understand there would be a mobility issue for the Guest and the Complainant expected that accessing a toilet with the aid of grab rails and handrails would be provided for using the toilet and having a bath.  .

On arrival the Complainant and her daughter were taken to a “platform” lift; it served the purpose of going up and down where there were a few steps. However, the platform was so small there was barely room for the Complainants wheelchair and her daughter (who is ASD and Dyspraxia). They could not reach the buttons and the Receptionist had to reach in and press the button for them to go up to the flat level where they encountered fire doors that open inwards towards the wheelchair user and the Complainant stated this was not well thought out for accessible needs.  The Complainant submitted various photos of the situation she encountered.  Eventually they came to a long corridor and on the front left was a public disabled toilet. At the very end of the corridor, was the allocated room allocated to the Complainant and her daughter.

After setting up for the Zoom appointment the Complainant went to Reception to enquire about the room provided and asked to speak to a Manager. The first Receptionist the Complainant met informed the Complainant that it was not her who took the booking and  “It was probably the new girl”.. The Complainant spoke to the new girl and mentioned the bathroom not being accessible and that she was unable to use the toilet and the washing facilities. The Receptionist said she had only just started, and she did not know they had no accessible rooms. The Complainant told her she did not want her to feel bad and said it was not her fault.

 During an interval of the Zoom meeting, the Complainant came out and spoke with Mr Thomas (the General Manager) and because he did not have an accessible room, he offered to give the Complainant her money back and said she could go and stay in a hotel nearer for the next day’s meeting.  At this point it was pouring with rain and the Complainant said she was exhausted because she had started at 5am that morning. She told the Manager she was uncomfortable leaving in case she had an accident as she was worn out. He replied there are taxis and he never suggested using the company credit card or even holding a room at an undisclosed hotel.

The Complainant submitted pictures she took showing the public disabled toilet. This was down the corridor from her room and that the complainant was expected to use. There was a fire door in between and the handle was too high for a wheelchair user to use. Outside their room door were Fire Extinguishers on the floor which the Complainant had a slight misdemeanour with while manoeuvring to access the room. The Complainant also submitted pictures of facilities in the room. The toilet in the bedroom was not accessible for the small electric wheelchair. The Complainant then requested a basin to do her ablutions in the morning. This was shoved through the door at 9pm when the Complainant and her daughter were already in their night attire. The Complainant was humiliated to be passed this bucket (a photo was supplied of a large Industrial mayonnaise bucket). In the morning she had to use the bucket and having no privacy from her daughter.

Mr Thomas was constantly repeating to the Complainant what her options were but did not put a physical plan into action. After all the verbal toing and froing, the reality was the toilet facilities provided were as the above. This is the solution the General Manager came up with and stated this is “what would work best for us both”. The Complainant alleged Mr Thomas was completely oblivious to the ongoing repetitious humiliation he was piling on her. She stated the Hotel stay was supposed to be a treat with her daughter. The Complainant stated it is difficult to change everything at a moment's notice for children with Autism (people with Autism require notice for any changes). The only tangible intention from the Respondent was the actual offer of one night in Sligo, and an offer of 500 Euros came after he had signed the ES2 asking the Complainant to withdraw her complaint to the WRC.

The Complainant has referred a complaint against the trading name of the intended Respondent, as opposed to the registered company, and has therefore pursued an incorrect entity,.Killaloe Hotel and Spa is a registered business name, while the correct registered entity is Flexiteam Limited. The Respondent brought this matter to the attention of the Adjudicator at the commencement of the hearing. In circumstances where this appears to be merely a technical error, the Respondent consented to amending the proper legal name of the Respondent to the complaint for the purposes of the hearing.

The Complainant has referred a complaint on the grounds of gender and disability under Section 21 of the Equal Status Act 2000 to the Workplace Relations Commission on 14 April 2023. Dr Jacqueline Elliott booked a reservation via the Pigsback deal site on the 22 January 2023 for 16 February 2023. The Complainant added the remarks "Accessible room full-time wheelchair user, plus teenager who is autistic" to her reservation. The Respondents receptionist, who was new to her position having only recently commenced employment, confirmed the booking. The Respondent promotes the Killaloe Hotel as having accessible facilities rather than "accessible rooms". Dr Elliott was allocated a room on 16 February 2023 that was accessible through a platform lift and had easy access to all of the hotel services.. When Dr Elliott requested to speak with a member of the management after checking in, Mr. Jibin Thomas, General Manger, took over from the Receptionist. Dr Elliott discussed her predicament as well as her daughter's circumstances. Mr. Thomas informed Dr. Elliott that the Respondent did not have fully accessible rooms and that the room assigned to her would be the closest.

The Respondents top objective is to look after its customers, Mr. Thomas offered the Complainant the finest alternative, as any hotel would in this situation. Mr. Thomas offered to relocate her to a different hotel with all accessible facilities, which would please and be suitable to both Dr Elliott and her daughter. As a way to secure this booking, Mr. Thomas had his colleague hold a room in the other hotel using the company credit card. While the Complainant was given time to consider it, Mr. Thomas offered to pay for all transportation costs to and from the hotel, as well as dinner for both the Complainant and her daughter on the house to compensate for any difficulty, and in addition Mr. Thomas offered complimentary breakfast upon their return the next morning. Dr Elliot eventually concluded that she would rather stay where she was. Mr. Thomas respected her decision and offered to speak with her again when she was ready. Mr. Thomas did not hear back from Dr Elliott.

Later, he noticed both of them eating at the restaurant. As a courtesy, Mr. Thomas knelt beside her and apologised for the situation, telling her that he would talk with her later after they both finished their dinner so as not to disrupt their time together. Later, around 21:45, Mr. Thomas encountered Dr. Elliot in the hotel library. He apologised again on behalf of the hotel and stated that the error was made by a young member of the front office crew, and that he assumed full responsibility for the occurrence. As Mr. Thomas realised the Complainant and her daughter were not having a good time, he offered to look after them both at their other resort in Co. Sligo, being the Castle Dargan Hotel, where they have fully accessible rooms for a one-night stay to show their hospitality. This was to include complimentary meals for the duration of their stay. Dr Elliott advised that she would think about it and get back to Mr. Thomas.

The Complainant requested a bucket to wash herself the next day because she had an early start the next morning. As it was nearly 22:15, Mr. Thomas’s goal was to provide Dr Elliott and her daughter some rest, so he grabbed the first clean bucket he saw, a large mayonnaise bucket. Mr. Thomas brought the bucket over to her room, asked if they needed any more help or towels, apologised again, and exited the room.

Mr. Thomas emailed Dr Elliott on February 17th at 14:23, offering his apologies and a one night complimentary stay at their other Sligo resort. This was followed up by a phone call a few days later where he offered the Complainant and her daughter both a stay at the hotel in Sligo for 3-5 nights with all meals included, however no response to this offer was received. Subsequently the Complainant issued a Form ES.1 dated 21 February 2023. Upon receipt of the Form ES.1, Mr. Thomas made another call reiterating his previous offer. No response was received from the Complainant for a few days in circumstances where she was admitted to the hospital. On March 6, 2023 the Complainant responded asking:

“Good Morning Mr Thomas,

Apologies for Friday, unfortunately

I was readmitted to the hospital.

If you could please respond to the registered letter. Thank you.

Kind regards

Dr Jacqueline Elliott"

Later that same day, Mr. Thomas responded by email advising that:

“Dear Jacqueline,

I am sorry to hear that you were admitted to the hospital. I hope you are feeling well now. I will respond to the letter. Once again, please accept my sincere apologies. I accept that it shouldn’t have happened, and I put my hands up for the mix up with the rooms. Please let me know if there is anything that I can do to make it up to you as I would like to show you, our hospitality.

Have a good evening.

Warm regards,

Jibin”

Mr. Thomas completed and returned the ES.2 form dated 23 March 2023, and made a further offer to the Complainant of €500 for the inconvenience caused plus the few nights’ accommodation in their Sligo resort.

The Respondent has zero tolerance for discrimination and is extremely apologetic for any distress, upset and inconvenience caused to the Complainant. When the matter was brought to the attention of the Respondents General Manager, Mr. Jibin Thomas, he sought to rectify the matter to the best of his ability and retained alternative accommodation for the Complainant who had advised that she had a meeting the following day in Limerick. While the Complainant appears to state in the Form ES1 that she believed that she was being asked to organise alternative accommodation herself, this was not what the Respondent sought to imply and had taken steps to retain other accommodation to meet the needs of the Complainant.

Reception staff are trained on how to take and allocate bookings. If, at the time of booking, a prospective guest provides information regarding their requirement for an accessible room, comments are to be noted on the booking and a room allocated to their needs immediately. The Respondents policy at the time was that receptionists were then to advise the prospective guest on the hotels facilities such as platform lifts and other lifts to travel to floors, accessible toilets in the public area and other relevant hotel information. Reception staff are to engage with the prospective guest to ascertain if the hotels facilites are suitable to the needs to the guest in circumstances where the hotel is only advertised as being a “hotel with accessible facilities”. This training is provided at on boarding. In addition, floor staff are provided with similar training with respect to the moving of chairs for full time wheelchair users or if not to ask if they would like the chair removed. The Respondents policy is to train staff to accommodate and recognise the needs of guests in a courtesy manner and engage and communicate to ensure that needs are accommodated at all times. Regretfully the reception staff member on duty at the time of the booking was a new member of staff and did not follow the correct procedure. Following this event further training was provided to managers, reception staff and it was again brought to the attention of all employees.

In relation to the burden of proof and pursuant to section 38A of Equal Status Acts, the Complainant is required to establish a prima facie case which requires her to demonstrate (i) that she is covered by the relevant discriminatory ground (ii) that there was specific treatment by the Respondent and (iii) that the Complainant was treated less favourably than another person would have been. Once the prima facie case has been established, the burden of proof shifts to the Respondent to rebut the presumption of discrimination. Section 38A of the Equal Status Acts (2000 – 2015) states as follows:

“Where in any proceeding’s 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. This section is without prejudice to any other enactment or rule of law in relation to the burden of proof in any proceedings which may be more favourable to the person.”

In the case of Mitchell v Southern Health Board [2001] ELR201, the Court stated as follows: “A Complainant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, the primary facts on which they rely seeking to raise a presumption of unlawful discrimination. It is only if those primary facts are established 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 was no infringement of the principle of equal treatment.”

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the Complainant must, establish that they are covered by the relevant discriminatory ground and that there was specific treatment by the Respondent which could reasonably give rise to the presumption that less favourable treatment of the Complainant had occurred. The Respondent accepted that the Complainant is covered by the relevant discriminatory ground. However, the Respondent maintained that there was no conscious or sub conscious discrimination. Regretfully the incident resulted due to an inexperienced member of staff not informing the Complainant of the facilities, for which the Respondent takes full responsibility for. However, the General Manager on becoming aware of the matter, took all possible steps to accommodate the Complainant by retaining alternative accommodation and seeking to compensate her. At all times Mr. Thomas has sought to engage proactively with the Complainant in an attempt to express sincere apologies for events at the time of the matter and after and sought to compensate the Complainant.

The Complainant in the ES1 form specifies that reasonable accommodation was not provided for her.  Regretfully the Hotel is a hotel with accessible facilities, rather than accessible rooms. The Equal Status Acts define discrimination as including “a refusal or failure by the [respondent] to do all that is reasonable to accommodate the needs of a person with a disability by providing [or allowing] 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”. However, this is not unlawful if providing the special treatment or facilities “would give rise to a cost, other than a nominal cost, to the provider of the service in question.” The Respondent Hotel has accessible facilities, and it currently does not have certain special facilities in rooms that were required by the Complainant due to the layout of rooms.

The Respondent submitted that this matter resulted due to an error in the booking process for which the Respondent is extremely apologetic and regretful, however the Respondent maintain that there was no conscious or subconscious discrimination, and it maintains zero tolerance towards discrimination.

In the Complainants ES1 form she specifies Discrimination on the basis of Civil Status. The Respondent had no knowledge of and continues to have no knowledge of the Complainant’s Civil Status. In the Complainant's WRC Complaint form she has indicated/alleged discrimination on the basis of Gender. The Respondent strongly denies any discrimination on the basis of Gender. Further the Respondent submits that it believes that the Complainant is unable to establish prima facie evidence of discrimination on the basis of Civil Status or Gender. 

The Respondent advised it wished  to resolve this matter and again extended its apology to Dr. Elliott. The Respondent advised it has taken steps and continues to take steps regarding training in respect of equality, diversity and non-discrimination to ensure that that such issues do not arise again in the Killaloe Hotel & Spa, or any other establishment under its management.  Additional training was provided to managers and receptionist in respect of bookings, and a written Training/Booking policy and Equal Status Policy are being prepared and implemented.

The Complainant alleged that he was discriminated against on grounds of disability in relation to her booking and stay at the Respondent Hotel in January 2023.

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

( 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)or, if appropriate, subsection (3B)( in this Act referred to as the ‘discriminatory grounds’) which

(i) exists,

(ii) existed but no longer exists,

(iii) may exist in the future, or

(iv) is imputed to the person concerned,

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.

It is well-established law that the Complainant is required to present, in the first instance, facts from which it can be inferred that they were 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 Healthboard 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”.

The Complainant submitted an ES1 form to the Respondent and this was replied to by the Respondent.

The Complainant gave evidence to the Hearing that she booked the Hotel to attend a Zoom meeting and take her daughter out of her comfort zone. She advised she booked the room on Pigsback.com who acted on behalf of the Hotel, She stated Pigsback were acting as an Agent for the Hotel and not a Contractor. The Complainant advised she received confirmation of he booking on January 22nd. Prior to arriving at the hotel she stated she rang the Hotel to confirm it was ok to arrive early.  She was informed that it was an accessible room and she could arrive early. She advised she was checked in and taken to a lift. She advised her wheelchair barely squeezed into the lift and the Receptionist pressed the button for the lift. On arriving at the room she noticed there was no grab handles in the bathroom and the bath was not accessible, The Complainant advised she held the door open with a fire extinguisher and looked out the corridor. She advised the bathroom was not accessible.

She went to Reception and spoke to the Receptionist and asked her had they any accessible rooms and the Receptionist replied “don’t know….have only been here a short while” . The Receptionist then went and got the Manager. The Complainant stated the Manager offered to give her the money back for the room. The Complainant then went back to the room as she had a Zoom business call. The Complainant stated she met the Manager during a break in the call and he offered to book her into another hotel. The Complainant stated she was exhausted at this point and the movement to another hotel would not agree with her daughter as she had to be prepared for change in advance due to the medical condition. She advised the Manager made another suggestion of using the Spa facilities for her bathroom needs. The Complainant had to go back to her Zoom call at this point. The Complainant met the Head of Housekeeping to see the bath facilities in the Spa (a floor below her room. The Complainant advised she had to go through the dining area to get to the Spa lift and people dining had to move to make room for her wheelchair.   She advised pot plants had to be moved and there was no railing in the lift to hold on to. She advised the Head of Housekeeping she could not manage this. She advised she was expected to go though this to get to bath facilities in her pyjamas and the Manager agreed he would not do it. Later that evening the Complainant advised the Manger approached her in the dining room and asked the Complainant to think about another Hotel with the appropriate facilities. The Manager advised there was a public toilet down the hallway from the room and that the Complainant could use this. The Complainant advised she has ton be careful what she eats and drinks. The Complainant advised she felt embarrassed when the Manager approached her in the Dining Room and had to stoop down to talk to her. The Complainant advised she and her daughter went to the room around 9pm as they were both tired and the Complainant could not access the bathroom. She rang looking for a basin and Mr. Thomas arrived with a large bucket. The Complainant advised she could not access the shower the following morning. The Complainant advised she was not refunded the room payment and dinner was not paid for by the Hotel.  The Complainant was taken back to Hospital soon after and could not take calls from the Hotel.

Mr. Jibin Thomas, General Manager of the Killaloe Hotel stated he would rely on his statement and gave the following evidence to the Hearing. He advised that they relied on the Pigsback booking form and the confirmation was sent by the Hotel reception.

Under cross examination by the Complainant Mr. Thomas was asked why he offered a 500 Euros compensation and 5 nights at their sister hotel in Sligo he advised this was to show their hospitality. The Complainant asked was this not to take the complaint to the WRC. Mr. Thomas replied this was as the situation was an honest mistake by a junior person who was new in Reception. He advised the Complainant was it not correct he offered her an apology for what happened and the Complainant replied she could not remember as she was exhausted at the time. Mr. Thomas advised that he did offer to find another Hotel but the Complainant had not replied to this. Mr. Thomas stated the alternative Hotel was in Limerick.

Mr. Thomas was asked when she phoned on the 9th February to confirm it was an accessible room booked was that the same person and Mr. Thomas replied it could have been  a different person. Mr. Thomas was asked do they have basins for washing facilities and he replied no and that’s why he got the Complainant the nearest possible thing to facilitate the Complainant.  Mr. Thomas was asked had he evidence of another Hotel being booked and he said no as it was common amongst hotels to make reservations with another hotel without a formal booking. Mr. Thomas stated no case was made on civil status or gender grounds.

The Complainant made a complaint under the Act that she had been discriminated against by a person, organisation /company who provides goods, services or facilities on the basis of her disability and gender. The issue of gender was not pursued at the Hearing so the Decision deals solely with the ground of discrimination on the disability ground. There was no dispute between the Parties that the Complainant qualified under this ground. As no case was made out on civil (which the Respondent only referred to at the Hearing) or gender grounds I conclude these elements of the complaints are not well founded.

I have considered this complaint from both a practical and legal perspective.

I have no doubt that there was no intention on behalf of the Respondent and the young Receptionist involved in deliberately causing the events that occurred. From a legal perspective, which is the critical assessment required under the Act, the following is my assessment of the situation. The Complainant made the hotel booking on January 22nd 2023 through the website Pigsback.com. She received a confirmation notice from Pigsback.com headed “Killaloe Hotel and Spa Reservation Confirmation” on January 22nd 2023 for a check in date of 16th February 2023. The correspondence from Pigsback.com stated “the confirmation email is being sent to you on behalf of Killaloe Hotel & Spa who has now accepted and confirmed your booking request”. The confirmation also stated under Special requirements, “accessible room, 1 full time wheelchair user with a autistic child”. The Complainant did not receive any further correspondence about her booking and no correspondence was sent directly from the Hotel to the Complainant.. My conclusion of this information is that Pigsback.com was acting on behalf of the Hotel, confirmed the Complainants wheelchair situation and special requirements to the Hotel and these conditions and requirements had been accepted by the Hotel. The Respondent made out that it only offered accessible disability facilities and not accessible disability rooms. In practical terms this is what is available at the hotel.. The Respondent was informed by Pigsback.com that the Complainant was booking a room in the Hotel and she was a wheelchair user. They accepted the booking on that basis. What subsequently transpired was the Complainant checked in the basis of her booking confirmation and found the facilities totally unsuitable, humiliating and upsetting. Based on this evidence the Complainant has established a case of discrimination and the burden of proof rests with the Respondent. The Respondent was attributing the error to a misunderstanding about what facilities they offered disabled people and the lack of experience of a new and young Receptionist but this is not where this issue first arose. The Hotel, through its agent, Pigsback.com accepted the booking on the terms specified on the confirmation form. Whether the Hotel did not examine these confirmation details or did not get the same details as the Complainant received (and Im of the view they would have) the Complainant should have been informed immediately by the Hotel when they received the confirmation that they were incapable of hosting the Complainant as they did not have the room facilities to do so.

There would not be a reasonable expectation that the Hotel could alter their room facilities in such a short time to accommodate the Complainants needs. While the General Manager was genuinely remorseful and apologetic to the Complainant at the Hearing as to what had occurred the fact of the matter is they accepted the booking as stated and could not provide the facilities they had agreed to provide for a wheelchair user and thus by offering the services to the Complainant and not providing them have discriminated against the Complainant. The other factor that must be taken into account in deciding the quantum of an award is the embarrassing and distressful situation the Complainant was put in, especially with her autistic child present. While I accept that the General Manager made some efforts to resolve the situation these did not go far enough and he did not act swiftly enough to resolve the situation by immediately booking another Hotel with wheelchair accessible rooms, and arranging suitable transport to and from that hotel,  although I accept the Complainants situation on the day with the business Zoom call contributed to this delay in acting. There was a degree of vagueness about whether a booking in another hotel was made or not.

I find that the Respondent has breached Section 4 of the Act by their failure in accepting terms of a booking which they could not deliver to a disabled person and by not identifying in advance of the Guest arriving that, they could not offer a disabled person the services they promised to deliver on receipt of the booking. A person without a disability would not have been subjected to the circumstances the Complainant experienced having made a booking through the same process. In all of the circumstances of this complaint, the Complainant was subject to less favourable treatment as a result of her disability and the Respondent failed to provide the necessary accommodation it committed to on the booking form to the complainant to facilitate her stay at the Hotel.  I find that the complaint is well founded.

The Complainant advised the Hearing that her main concern was that the circumstances she had to endure where fixed so that another disabled person would not have to endure the same situation she encountered. I decide that the Respondents Hotel web site be amended to clearly state what type of facilities are available for disabled staff and that it specifically states their current rooms are not wheelchair accessible. I Order this change must be implemented by January 31st 2024, at the latest. It is not my role to influence the Hotel on what type of room facilities it chooses to provide but I strongly encourage it to review its policy on the non-provision of a room with disabled facilities.

I also deem it appropriate to award the Complainant a sum of 7,000 Euros compensation for the breach of the Act and the situation she had to endure.

Discrimination