ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00046239

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Emily Brady	JFR Limited

Representatives

Michelle Loughnane Mullany Walsh Maxwells

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-00057062-001	09/06/2023

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/12/2023

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 complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Naming and Notification of the Respondent

The Complainant named the Respondent as 777 Dublin which is the trading name of the premise that she has submitted complaints about.

The Respondent’s representative pointed out that not only does 777 Dublin not exist as a legal entity but the Complainant, by virtue of misnaming them failed to meet any of the notification requirements set out in Section 21. In her ES1 she named Mr Farrell as the Respondent.

My approach to this issue is informed by the decision of O’Malley J in G v. The Department for Social Protection [2015] IEHC 419:

…the Act is intended to cover a broad range of human life and activity, and that its overall purpose is to reduce the social wrong of discrimination based on improper considerations. Having regard to the principles applicable to remedial statutes, it should be construed widely and liberally.

The Complainant substantially completed the notification requirements of the Equal Status Act. While the strict wording of the requirements may not have been adhered to I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of all the issues and was in a position to respond to the ES1 form.

The Complainant requested that I amend the name of the Respondent to JFR Limited. I am cognisant of the decision of McGovern J in Louth VEC v The Equality Tribunal [2009] IEHC 370

If it is permissible in court proceedings to amend pleadings, where the justice of the case requires it, then a fortiori, it should be permissible to amend a claim as set out in a form such as the EE1, so long as the general nature of the complaint (in this case, discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation) remains the same

In the circumstances I am satisfied that I should amend the proceedings to reflect the actual name of the Respondent.

Background:

The Complainant attended the Respondent’s bar / restaurant on the evening of Wednesday the 19th of April 2023.

The bar, while notoriously loud, was much louder than the Complainant expected and experienced in the past. She and her friends were seated beside the music system. The Complainant has a hearing disability and she was not able to engage with the people around her due to the volume of the sound system. She alleges that she identified her disability to a member of staff and asked to be moved away from the sound system but this request was not facilitated.

The Respondent denies that the Complainant ever notified them that she had a hearing related disability. They did seek to move her when she requested but there were no other tables available.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant attended the hearing and gave evidence under affirmation. Her friend and witness Mr Pat McCarty gave evidence under affirmation. The Complainant supplied documentary evidence also.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent’s solicitor made detailed written and legal submissions. Mr John Farrell, Ms Christine Noguera and Mr Pepe Rodriguez gave evidence under oath or affirmation.

Findings and Conclusions:

It is common case that 777 is a licensed premises. The Complainant’s receipt was even furnished in evidence.

Section 19 Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003 transferred jurisdiction of equal status act complaints to the District Court. It specifically states that:

A person who claims that prohibited conduct has been directed against him or her on, or at the point of entry to, licensed premises may apply to the District Court for redress.

It goes on to state that:

The Act of 2000 shall cease to apply in relation to prohibited conduct occurring on, or at the point of entry to, licensed premises on or after the commencement of this section.

On review of the above amendments to the Equal Status Act I, unfortunately, do not have jurisdiction to consider this matter.

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.

The WRC does not have jurisdiction in this matter as it concerns alleged prohibited conduct in a licensed premises.

Dated: 07/05/2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy

Key Words: