Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Bryan  Hogan

SEAI

Representatives

 Mason Hayes & Curran LLP

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00055028-001

03/01/2023

The complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 3 January 2023.  The respondent was named as a respondent to the complaint.

In the Form ES.1 attached to the complaint received, the complainant selected discrimination on grounds of disability and a 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.

…”

Various concerns in respect of the complaint were raised on behalf of the respondent in January 2024, including a paucity of detail in the complaint referred against the respondent.  It was submitted that the complainant needed to clarify the dates of discrimination alleged and the particulars of his claim against the respondent.  

It was further submitted that the complainant does not have locus standi to maintain a complaint in relation to the respondent’s Warmer Homes Scheme as the complainant was not an applicant under the Scheme. 

It was submitted that the complainant’s claim is frivolous, vexatious and/or misconceived and should be dismissed in accordance with section 22 of the Equal Status Acts.

In referring his complaint, the complainant stated that it is one complaint, three respondents. 

Where there is more than one respondent to a complaint, the Commission’s practice and procedure is to allocate a unique reference number for each respondent.  It may also be necessary to establish or clarify the specific complaints referred against each respondent.

The complainant in the Form ES.1, dated 17 October 2022, stated that he needed time to formulate his case.  I note that the respondent did not respond to the Form ES.1.  I have considered the complainant’s request of the respondent for further information.  I am not satisfied that the questions asked would assist or enable the complainant in making a case against the respondent under the Equal Status Acts 2000 – 2015 (the “Acts”).

Further to the respondent’s request that the claim be dismissed under section 22 of the Acts, I sought the following information from the complainant:-

(i)               details of the respondent’s alleged discrimination against the complainant and failure to provide reasonable accommodation, and

(ii)              the date the prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred or the most recent date.

I also requested any comments on correspondence from the respondent which included the request for dismissal of the claim.

The complainant’s response included the following statement:-

“This case has nothing to do with me and the WRC were notified in May of last year of the contact details of the respondent.”

The response did not comment on the respondent’s request and failed to provide the information I had requested. 

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.

I consider this claim against the respondent to be frivolous, vexatious or misconceived.  The complainant has had ample time to formulate any case against the respondent and has failed to provide material information requested of him.  I have also had regard to the complainant’s statement that the case has nothing to do with him.

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.  

Section 22 Equal Status Acts – failure to particularise claim