Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Margaret Fitzpatrick	Westwood

Representatives

SELF

Peter Duff & Co, 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-00057852-001	23/07/2023

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 22/11/2023

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, 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:

The Complainant has been a member of the Respondent gym since 2009.

This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 23rd July 2023.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

1. The Complainant became a full-time student in April 2023.

2. In May 2023 the Complaint made enquiries to her local gym regarding student membership of the gym. She produced her student card verifying that she was a full-time student. The Complainant had been a member of the gym since 2009.

3. She was informed that she could not avail of the student membership rate because she was more than 25 years old.

4. The Complainant completed form ES1 on 16th June 2023.

5. The Complainant received no response from the Respondent.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Claimant’s claim will be defended on the ground that, in restricting their “full time student” membership to person’s aged under 25, the Respondent did not discriminate against the Claimant in a manner contrary to the provisions of the Equal Status Acts.

The Respondent’s position is very straight forward and they would argue that the Act allows for discrimination.

Findings and Conclusions:

Equality law is based on comparisons; how one person is treated by comparison to another who does not possess the relevant protected characteristic. It is therefore necessary to ground a claim of discrimination by pointing to how another person, not having the protected characteristic relied upon, was, is or would be treated in a comparable situation. This is referred to as a comparator.

A comparator is an evidential tool. They are intended to contrast the treatment of the complainant, in respect to the matter complained of, with that of another person in similar circumstances who does not have the protected characteristic relied upon.

In many cases the comparator will be an actual person, but they need not be. A hypothetical comparator can be constructed by asking why the complainant was treated as they were. If the treatment complained of a protected characteristic, a hypothetical comparator is a supposed person who does not have that characteristic but who is otherwise in the same position as the complainant.

In the instant case the complainant is a full-time student who is over the age of 25. The hypothetical comparator is a full-time student under the age of 25. Both apply for student membership of the respondent’s gym. The Complainant is asked to pay the full membership rate, the hypothetical comparator is charged a discounted student rate. This is discrimination on the grounds of the complainant’s age.

Decision:

Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act

I conclude that the complaint as presented under the Equal Status Act 2000 is well founded and now order the Respondent to pay compensation in the amount of €3,000 to the Complainant.

Such payment should be made to the Complainant within 42 days from the date of this decision.

Dated: 28-03-24

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan

Key Words:

Equal Status Act, 2000.