ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00046324
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Emma Rogers | Dsw Homecare Services Ltd Bluebirdcare |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives | Self-represented | Peter Gilfedder IBEC |
Complaint(s):
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-00057277-001 | 21/06/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/11/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, 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.
Background:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The complainant and a witness for the respondent undertook to give their evidence under affirmation. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
At the start of the hearing the respondent submitted that the papers submitted by the complainant revealed no discrimination on the basis of the discriminatory ground put forward by the complainant, that of Civil Status. The respondent sought that this be clarified as a preliminary matter and submitted that in accordance with Section 85A of the Act, facts must be adduced by the complainant from which discrimination under the Act may be inferred. The respondent noted that the burden of proving this rests with the complainant. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant confirmed that her complaint did not concern the Civil Status ground as indicated in her complaint form. |
Findings and Conclusions:
As a preliminary matter, the respondent submitted that the papers submitted by the complainant only indicated the Civil Status ground but did not reveal any detail as to how or where discrimination on that ground took place. The complainant was not represented. The complainant took her complaint under the Civil Status ground. The interpretation of ‘Civil Status’ as laid down in Section 2 of the Employment Equality Act was read out to her by the Adjudicator. The complainant confirmed that her complaint had nothing to do with the Civil Status ground. Section 85A of the Employment Equality Act states as follows: Burden of proof. 85A.—(1) Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary. The complainant confirmed that there was no nexus to the ground cited in her complaint form. The complainant has not established facts from which discrimination as provided for under the Acts may be inferred. Accordingly, I find that the complainant was not discriminated against under the provisions of the Employment Equality Act. |
Decision:
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented to me in connection with this complaint, my decision is that the complainant was not discriminated against in accordance with the Act. |
Dated: 8th November 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Employment Equality – Civil Status Ground - no nexus to ground – not discriminated against |