Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Bryan  Hogan

Eamon Ryan

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00055025-001

03/01/2023

The complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 3 January 2023. 

The respondent was detailed as one of three respondents to the complaint.

In the Form ES.1 attached to the complaint received, the complainant selected discrimination on grounds of disability and failure to provide him with reasonable accommodation as the unlawful treatment the subject of the notification.  The complaint detail provided was “multiple incidents in 2022”. 

The less favourable treatment of the complainant was expressed to include the following:-

“ESRI Research published September 2021 states “People with disabilities are more than twice as likely to experience poverty and deprivation as those without disabilities.” …

Yet, the DECCT Scheme for SEAI puts people with disabilities at a disadvantage.  The schemes for people without a disability i.e. wealthy people are much more comprehensive.

…”

The request for other information section of the Form ES.1 included a question about reasonable accommodations for retrofitting the homes of people eligible for the Warmer Homes Scheme.

In referring his complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission, the complainant stated that it is one complaint, three respondents. 

The respondent to this complaint CA-00055025-001 held the offices of Minister for Transport and Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications in 2022.

The Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications set the policy underpinning the energy efficiency schemes administered by the SEAI, which scheme is the subject of the complainant’s complaint of less favourable treatment.

There is no connection between the powers, duties and functions of the Department of Transport and the complaint. 

Section 22 of the Acts provides that the Director General 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.”

Birmingham J in considering strike out applications in O’N -v- McD & ors [2013] IEHC 135 stated as follows:

“…the words “frivolous” and “vexatious” are terms of art, they are legal terms and they are not used in a pejorative sense. They merely mean that the plaintiff has no reasonable chance of succeeding and that, because there is no reasonable chance of success, it is frivolous to bring the case. By the same token it imposes a hardship on the defendant if he has to expend time, effort and money in defending an action which cannot succeed and that is regarded as vexatious…”

The jurisdiction to dismiss a case under section 22 of the Acts is concerned with ensuring that the right to refer a case to the Commission is not abused and that a respondent is not required to defend proceedings which are frivolous, vexatious or misconceived.

The person entitled, or having locus standi, to pursue a case under the Acts is a person who claims that prohibited conduct has been directed against him or her.  A respondent is a person alleged by a complainant to have engaged in prohibited conduct directed against the complainant.

The complainant asserts that the Department of Environment, Climate and Communications’ scheme for SEAI puts people with disabilities at a disadvantage, however this does not give him the right to seek redress under the Acts.  As per my finding in ADJ-00044783, the complainant was neither the applicant for, nor recipient of a service in respect of the relevant home energy upgrade scheme the subject matter of the complaint.

I therefore find that the complainant does not have locus standi to pursue this case against the respondent and that the case against the respondent is frivolous, vexatious or misconceived.

In the circumstances I am satisfied that this claim is frivolous, vexatious or misconceived and I am dismissing same in accordance with section 22 of the Acts.

For the reasons set out above, my decision is to dismiss this claim in accordance with section 22 of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2015.  

Equal Status Acts – Discrimination – Disability - Section 21 – Locus standi – Right to seek redress –Respondent