ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00034782
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Mark J. Savage | Salus Medical Clinic |
Representatives |
| Emily Sexton of Comyn Kelleher Tobin Solicitors |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00045887-001 | 31/08/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/12/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the preliminary issue raised by the Respondent and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to that issue.
Background:
The Complainant attended the Respondent medical clinic on the 3rd of March 2021 while the Covid-19 pandemic restrictions were still in place. He was asked to and refused to wear a facemask. He has submitted complaints that this constituted religious discrimination.
The Respondent made a preliminary submission that this complaint should be dismissed under Section 22 of the Equal Status Act on the basis it was misconceived. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant made submissions on the preliminary issue and outlined why he believed the requirement to wear a mask was related to his religion and constituted religious discrimination. As a devout evangelical Christian he is required to bear witness to truth. That is a manifestation of his religion. There is no proven truth that Covid -19 exists or that he might transmit it if it does. As such he was entitled by way of his religious belief to refuse to wear a mask. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent’s solicitor made legal submissions. They describe the Complainant as a serial litigant and refer to 41 specific decisions resulting from statutory complaints submitted by the Complainant against various parties. These complaints span back to 2007 and have all been unsuccessful aside for a single complaint of gender discrimination in 2007 in which he was awarded €600. They point out that the WRC has, in a separate case, referred to the Complainant and as vexatious litigant (Mark J. Savage v Meta Platforms Ireland Limited ADJ-00038792). Respondent believes there is no genuine basis for the Complainant’s complaint. It is simply not credible to utilise the guise of religious discrimination as the basis for this complaint when the stated reason for the Complainant’s refusal appears to relate to a belief of the Complainant that the Covid 19 virus was not real. There is no question that the Complainant was treated any differently to another person (hypothetical or otherwise) on religious grounds. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 22 of the Act provides that: “22.—(1) The Director of the Workplace Relations Commission may dismiss a claim at any stage if of opinion that it has been made in bad faith or is frivolous, vexatious or misconceived or relates to a trivial matter.” The Complainant appears to have adopted a view that if any party disagrees with his subjective view as to the truth and in so doing inhibits him from accessing services, then they are religiously discriminating against him. This is obviously misconceived. |
Decision:
I dismiss the complaint as misconceived as per section 22 of the Equal Status Acts. |
Dated: 06/08/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|