Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Zoe  Sidhu

Supermacs Ireland Ltd

Representatives

  Self

David Gaffney Padraig J. Sheehan Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00060752-001

27/12/2023

In accordance with Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, 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.

I conducted a remote hearing in accordance with the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and Statutory Instrument 359/2020 which designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The Complainant represented herself at the Adjudication hearing. 

The claims were initiated by way of WRC Complaint Form which was received on the 27th of December 2023. The “Complaint Specific Details or Statement” part of the Complaint Form stated as follows:

This complaint is in regard to severe discrimination and extreme hostile work environment and discrimination in the areas of age, race, nationality and hazing. This aggression was so intense that it included verbal and physical abuse, (I will mail photographs of bruises) intimidation and interfered with my ability to do my job. I made several attempts to report the issues to my direct manager and was not only instructed that no formal complaints would be recorded of the mistreatment but was told I was the problem for opposing the discrimination. And while in the vulnerable times of reporting these incidents I was further bullied by my line manager and another supervisor when they also made verbal racist remarks while in the closed meeting. I took it upon myself to formally document the discrimination and they refused to accept it so I emailed and also physically mailed by registered mail, copies of the incident reports. They did not reply or acknowledge the reports. I will mail them to you when I get my reference number for this complaint. In the last time that I spoke with my manager she told me she looked forward to seeing me on the next days shift and only hours after I left I received an email from the Operations Manager that I was fired. This was shocking to me because it was in the middle of extreme discrimination and hostile work environment ongoing unresolved reports with not efforts of resolution or advocacy

HR Report

The Complainant provided detailed accounts of various events which took place in her workplace which she described as a HR Report which was submitted to the Respondent on the 13th of September 2023.

In response to my directions given after the initial hearing on the 17th of May 2024, the Complainant delivered a submission dated the 30th of May 2024 which included the following:

My employment started on 28th August, 2023 and was terminated because I objected to discrimination of my National Origin, on 5th September 2023

There were many individual incidents of racial discrimination towards me that happened several times every day while I was employed at Supermac’s. I am listing only a few of the events notes, some don’t have a date and I was not able to learn everyone's names that harassed me about being a foreigner. The details of racial harassment are as I wrote in my notes that I made on my breaks and when I got home from work there were many that I didn’t document. I have made every effort to keep this in chronological order and as concise as possible.

1. Hand written note: Lunchtime, I was about to serve a man of East Indian descent at the deli counter. [Named Supervisor] told me to not serve him and just get rid of him. I looked at her confused, and asked why? She said that he comes once a week and she hated his kind, I told her that was racist and wrong and it offended me personally as I have East Indian heritage. She walked off and started to tell other coworkers about what happened and I served the man.

2. Hand written note: It was about 30 minutes before the end of the deli service, a family of Middle Eastern descent came to the hot food bar to order food. [Named Supervisor] refused them service saying it was closed for the day but I served them anyway because we were still open. After that an Irish family came in and [Named Supervisor] served them. I asked her why she refused the Middle Eastern family service, she said she won’t deal with those kinds of people. I told her that was racist discrimination and I took personal offense and reminded her that I had East Indian heritage. She scoffed at me and walked away.

3. 4 September 2023- I was in the hot deli area and the breakfast tour bus crowd had slowed down. I was asked to begin changing out the breakfast food from the hot bar but I didn’t know how, I hadn’t been trained. [Second Named Supervisor] was the supervisor on duty. I had not met her before. She had the hot oven paddle in her hand and was telling another employee about how stupid the American tourists off the buses and the American newcomers were. I asked Noreen how to do it and she said,”Wait till she gives the word.” Some of the other girls stepped back a bit and I apologized that I was confused as to who she meant by ‘she’ but [Second Named Supervisor] ignored me. I was so confused and I asked her again then she said she wasn’t talking to me. I started to serve a customer who had heard everything and he put his hands up in surrender. I served him. I told [Second Named Supervisor] I didn’t mean to offend her but I was just asking her as the supervisor to please train me on how to change over from breakfast to dinner. Then [Second Named Supervisor] shook her hand in the air at me and said, “I was not talking to you and I am not training you how to do anything. Get out of my face”. Then I quickly got out of her way and was behind her. Then [Second Named Supervisor]  looked back at me and swung the paddle at me and hit me on my upper thigh. I got away from her quickly and then left to find the Deli Manager to report the assault.

4. 4 September 2023- [Deli Manager’]s office I reported the assault and racist behavior of [Second Named Supervisor]  and the Deli Manager responded by defending [Second Named Supervisor]  saying that [Second Named Supervisor]  is a cranky older lady and she is a bit of a tougher woman. The Deli Managersaid there wasn’t much she could do with [Second Named Supervisor]  because she had worked there for such a long time. I told her it was extremely out of line to excuse Noreen's abuse of me just because she was older. Then [the Deli Manager] raised her voice and said,”Now there Zoe, there’s just a way of respecting our elders and no matter what’s happening you mustn't take it personally. You are a very young girl and you have no business treating someone of authority this way.” She was turning this around to make me wrong for objecting and reporting the assault and racism. Then {the Deli Manager] said she had just had Nori in the day before with other employees complaining of her rough manners. And [the Deli Manager] said she would call her in again and speak with her to be more patient with me and my mother for being American. This was racist in itself. [The Deli Manager] then started talking about a drama towards your mother from [Named Supervisor]  and [Second Named Supervisor], that they had been working there a long time and had issues with authority.

5. 5 September 2023, 9:10 a.m. – [the Deli Manager] rolled her eyes and told me, ”I’ll be seeing you in my office’ so I followed her. I was welcomed by supervisor [Second Named Supervisor]  saying, “These damn Americans”. [The Deli Manager] ignored [Second Named Supervisor]'s racist comment, closed/locked the door and said she felt there were some personality conflicts to sort out and asked me to have a seat. As they were both standing I said no thank you that I didn’t feel comfortable to sit while they were standing and I agreed that there was an extreme personality conflict [Second Named Supervisor]  has with myself. Then [Second Named Supervisor]  got very red in the face and yelled at [the Deli Manager], “See, this is what I am talking about, these Damn Americans. They both come in spreading their bad energy around this entire place.” I was very afraid of being attacked and in the small room with them. [Second Named Supervisor] had been spreading hate and prejudice against me being Mexican and East Indian. [The Deli Manager] didn’t reprimand [Second Named Supervisor] for her racist verbal attack. Instead [the Deli Manager] turned to me and said, “See, it’s only a cultural difference and [Second Named Supervisor] is just not used to it.” I felt terribly shaken and attacked and physically threatened by both of them. [Second Named Supervisor] kept waving her arms around and was very agitated, she said “It’s more than that, [Name], her and her mother are spreading bad energy.” {the Deli Manager] said,”Stop insulting Zoe, She is a new hire and I understand there is a cultural difference here but you need to work through it.” [Second Named Supervisor] continued to use racial slurs like stupid American. Then [Second Named Supervisor] started talking about a situation with [Named Supervisor]. [Second Named Supervisor] said, “[Named Supervisor] is right to be treating her American mother terribly. She was telling her mother to get rid of some Indian family because they were holding up the line and her mother snapped back that they were still customers and her mother helped them. She even mentioned that her ridiculous daughter is Indian!” Then [the Deli Manager] shook her head at me. I asked what this had to do with [Second Named Supervisor] and I. Then [the Deli Manager] said okay girls, let’s take a breather. Then [the Deli Manager] asked me to tell my side. So I did and [Second Named Supervisor] got very angry and heated and said to [the Deli Manager], “I can’t stand this dumb American girl. She has got bad devil energy around her. I can’t stand her mother too. Please transfer me to a different department. Then [the Deli Manager] turned to me and said,” Zoe this is not happening again because we cannot afford to lose [Second Named Supervisor] and you are going to stop being so polite, it comes off very, very rude and disrespectful. The way you say ma’am is too polite. You have gotten so many complaints about being so polite. Why can’t you just come in and do your job like the rest of us?”. I asked [the Deli Manager] who had complained about me being too polite. She rolled her eyes again and ignored my question. [The Deli Manager] then said, “I hope none of you are trying to be friends with anyone here, no one should be polite or nice to each other or making friends, just come in and do your work like I hired you to do. And Zoe, you act just like those dumb Americans we serve, just right out dumb and polite. It’s offensive and you need to stop that. People come in and work and customers come in and order and that’s it. Don’t make best friends with anyone here and stop being nice to everyone.” Then [Second Named Supervisor]  and [the Deli Manager] both turned to me and at the same time said, “I don’t want to be your best friend! Then [the Deli Manager] said I must always keep [Second Named Supervisor]  up to date about anything and everything  when [the Deli Manager] was not around. Then [the Deli Manager] told me that I should already know, that I was new there and needed to learn about Irish people and learn to be more Irish or I will have to leave. After being so aggressively discriminated against by my manager and [Second Named Supervisor]. I was shaking and trying to keep my composure but after I got back to my station, I began to cry and needed to go home after this horrible experience. I tried to find [the Deli Manager] but no one knew where she was. So I clocked out and left.

The Respondent did not provide a written submission

The Respondent’s solicitor denied on the Respondent’s behalf the entirety of the facts alleged in the Complainant’s submissions which, it was contended never happened. The Complainant’s employment was terminated after a short period of employment as she was deemed by the Deli Manager to be unsuitable for the work. It was denied that the Complainant at any stage had been assaulted or that she had ever reported any such alleged assault. It was further denied that the Complainant at any stage had complained of discrimination, victimisation or harassment on the grounds of her non-Irish nationality.

The term Nationality in Section 2 of the Acts includes “race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins”. The ground is referred to in the Act as in this Act referred to as “the ground of race”

In the absence of an identified comparator, no claim in relation to discrimination in terms and conditions of employment can be sustained. However the claims for victimisation, harassment and discriminatory dismissal will be considered.

Section 85A of the Acts makes specific provision in relation to the burden of proof in Discrimination Claims

Section 85A of the Acts makes specific provision in relation to the burden of proof in Discrimination Claims

Section 85A (1) of the Acts states that:

“Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.”

In the case of Teresa Mitchell v Southern Health Board (Cork University Hospital) AEE/99/8, [2001] 12E.L.R. 201, the Labour Court concluded that:

“a complainant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, the primary facts on which they rely in seeking to raise a presumption of unlawful discrimination. It is only if these primary facts are established to the satisfaction of the Court, and they are regarded by the Court as being of sufficient significance to raise presumption of discrimination, that the onus shifts to the respondent to prove that there was no infringement of the principle of equal treatment”

The Labour Court has held in Hallinan v. Moy Valley ResourcesDEC-S2008-025 that to establish the relevant facts the Complainant must:

(a)    establish that he or she is covered by the protected ground;

(b)   Establish the specific treatment has allegedly taken place;

(c)    The treatment was less favourable than was or would be afforded to a person not covered by the relevant discriminatory ground.

Similarly in Minaguchi v Mr. Ray Byrne, T/A Wineport Lakeshore Restaurant DEC-E/2002/20 where Equality Officer, Vivian Jackson stated:

“It appears to me that the three key elements which need to be established by a

complainant to show that a prima facie case exists are (i) that s/he is covered by the

relevant discriminatory ground(s), (ii) that s/he has been subjected to specific treatment

and (iii) that this treatment is less favourable than the treatment someone, who is not

covered by the relevant discriminatory, has been or would be treated.”

The way in which Section 85 A has been applied has been further clarified. In Cork City Council v. McCarthy, Labour Court, EDA0821 the Labour Court had the following to say about the process:

“The type or range of facts which may be relied upon by a complainant can vary significantly from case to case. The law provides that the probative burden shifts where a complainant proves facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination. The language used indicates that where the primary facts alleged are proved it remains for the Court to decide if the inference or presumption contended for can properly be drawn from those facts. This entails a consideration of the range of conclusions which may appropriately be drawn to explain a particular fact or a set of facts which are proved in evidence. At the initial stage the complainant is merely seeking to establish a prima facie case. Hence, it is not necessary to establish that the conclusion of discrimination is the only, or indeed the most likely, explanation which can be drawn from the proved facts. It is sufficient that the presumption is within the range of inferences which can reasonably be drawn from those facts.”

In Dyflin Publications Ltd. v. Spasic EDA0823, the foregoing passage was cited with approval.  In addition the Court had regard to the judgement of Mummery LJ in the U.K. Court of Appeal in Madarassy v Nomura International plc, [2007] IRLR 246. In that case a provision similar to Section 85A was considered and the Court said that the provision:

“does not expressly or impliedly prevent the tribunal at the first stage from hearing, accepting or drawing inferences from evidence adduced by the respondent disputing and rebutting the complainant's evidence of discrimination. The respondent may adduce evidence at the first stage to show that the acts which are alleged to be discriminatory never happened; or that, if they did, they were not less favourable treatment of the complainant; or that the comparators chosen by the complainant or the situations with which comparisons are made are not truly like the complainant or the situation of the complainant; or that, even if there has been less favourable treatment of the complainant, it was not on the ground of her sex or pregnancy.

Approving of the foregoing passage, the Labour Court in Dyflin Publications held that:

“…in considering if the burden of proof shifts the Court should consider any evidence adduced by the Respondent to show that, when viewed in their proper context, the facts relied upon do not support the inference contended for by the Complainant.

EVIDENCE

The Complainant gave evidence on affirmation.

The Complainant gave evidence. Initially, she said that the incidents cited in her submissions regarding the statements and conduct of her supervisor were not reported to management at any stage prior to the dismissal. She said that she regretted not reporting the incidents, that it was a mistake.

On the 4th of September 2023 the Complainant said that she was assaulted by a supervisor after the supervisor spoke to her harshly and turned around. When she did so the oven paddle which the supervisor was holding made contact with the Complainant. The Complainant exclaimed and said to the Supervisor “you just poked me with the paddle”. The supervisor ignored the Complainant. The Complainant asked another female staff-member if she had seen what happened but this person “stayed out of it”. A male member of staff said that he was sorry that this had happened to the Complainant and that the supervisor had her moments. The Complainant went directly to the Deli Manager’s office to complain about the incident. She said to the Deli Manager that she had been seriously physically assaulted and that she had experienced racism towards customers. She did not tell the Deli Manager who did what, but she named two supervisors who she wanted the Deli Manager to speak to. As soon as the supervisors were named the Deli Manager rolled her eyes and appeared exasperated or frustrated. She said [Named Supervisor] is a cranky old lady. She is tougher woman and anything she says or does you shouldn’t take personally. She will warm to you in time. The Complainant protested that one cannot ignore what a person says or does just because of her age to which the Deli Manager replied in a raised voice “that is no way to treat people who are older than you. The Complainant said that’s insane you cannot tell me to respect her just because she is older. The Deli Manager said that she wanted to hear both sides of the story and she went to get the supervisor who then joined the meeting. The office was very small and other employees outside were asked to move away from the area and the lights outside the office were turned out. The office was very small. The door was closed. The Deli Manager said no-one else can come in as the door is locked and there are no cameras. The Complainant felt very uncomfortable and said that she did not need to report anything with the door closed. The Deli Manager asked the Complainant to recount her side of the situation but before she could do so the supervisor interrupted her, saying that she just couldn’t take it anymore, that the Complainant and her mother were “just like those American tourists. They come in her with their sweet attitude. They bring negative devil energy to the place.” The Complainant “zoned out”. The Deli Manager said that they did not have to be friends but that they were all going to have to try to get along and do the jobs they were hired to do. The Deli Manager added that the Complainant needed to be a little bit more Irish and that the Supervisor was right. When the Complainant asked the Deli Manager to explain the latter said that the Complainant should not say “Sir” or “Ma’am” because it made her sound like a traveller. The Complainant was then told to go back to work. She told her mother that “something had happened” and that she was going home. The Complainant dd not make reports about any of the above until what were described as her HR Reports were submitted on the 13th of September 2023.

In cross examination it was put to the Complainant that she made no written report or complaint until the 13th of September 2023. The Complainant accepted that this was the case. It was put to her that there were different versions of the events in those reports and the WRC Complaint form and further differences between both of those and the submission delivered in May 2023. It was put to the Complainant that her handwritten notes were not accurate and were undated and w=did not constitute a contemporaneous record. The Complainant said that she could not recall the dates in the notes. Regarding the HR Reports, she said that she had no intention of making a claim when they were submitted. She did not accept that the only reason for the first meeting with the Deli Manager was to report that she was having difficulty learning the job. She did not accept that she never mentioned discrimination or the alleged assault. It was put to the Complainant that her mother could not have heard the call made to her by the Deli Manager at 2:32 pm since she was still in work and the Complainant could not explain this but insisted that her mother was beside her when she took that call.  

The Complainant was unsure whether the meetings she described and the assault incident all occurred on the same day or over two days, the 4th and 5th of September 2023. She thought the one-to one discussion with the Deli Manager was on the 4th of September 2023 and the assault and the meeting with the Deli Manager and the supervisor was on the next day. However she was unsure about this and she said that the assault may have happened on the 4th of September 2023. 

The Deli Manager gave evidence. She had two meetings with the Complainant on the 4th and 5th of September 2023.

The first meeting on the 4th of September 2023 was very informal. The Complainant called into her office and said that she was having some difficulties learning everything out front. The Deli Manager reassured the Complainant that she would pick it up. The meeting lasted five minutes at most. The Complainant never mentioned discrimination, nor did she say anything about being hit with a paddle.

On the 5th of September 2023, when the Deli Manager arrived at work at 8:30 am, she was told that the Complainant had forgotten her work shoes and had gone home to get them. At around 9 am the Complainant’s supervisor came to the office and said that she was having difficulties working with the Complainant, that the Complainant was not taking instruction from her. The Deli Manager wanted to nip the issue in the bud so she went out to the floor and called the Complainant into the meeting. On the way the Deli Manager said to the Complainant, “We’re going to have a little chat with [the Supervisor]”. The Deli Manager’s thinking was that she didn’t want to escalate the situation. When they got to the office the door was left open and stayed open throughout the meeting. The Complainant, the Supervisor and the Deli Manager were present. The Supervisor said, referring to the Complainant, “I’m finding it hard for us to work with each other”. The Deli Manager then said: “We all need to pull together and work together”. The Complainant did not say anything, and the Deli Manager asked her to say whatever she wanted to say. The Complainant said that she would like more instruction, more help, that she was finding it difficult but was willing to learn. At this the Deli Manager then asked the Complainant and the Supervisor to please get on and to work together. The meeting lasted about 7 or 8 minutes.

The Deli Manager learned subsequently that the Complainant had clocked out at 9:51 and had gone home. Having spoken briefly to the Complainant’s mother that afternoon, the Deli Manager made a telephone call to the Complainant, and she spoke to her. From her telephone records the Deli Manager identified the time of this call as 2:32 pm. The Deli Manager asked the Complainant where she was and how she was as she was worried for her welfare given that she had left work before the end of her shift and had gone home. The Deli Manager was certain that she only spoke to the Complainant on the call.

Later that day the Deli Manager decided to terminate the Complainant’s employment.  It was her decision even though the email dismissing the Complainant, sent at 15:44 was sent by the Operations Manager. The Deli Manager imparted her decision to the Operations Manager who then wrote and sent the email to the Complainant, which including the following:

“Unfortunately, events over the last number of days have forced me to consider your fit in the role of Deli Assistant …

Whilst [the Deli Manager] and I had been trying to deal with the issues raised, further escalation today has led me to the conclusion that this employment is not going to work going forward.

As per our policies and procedures, all employees are subject to a probationary period of 6 months.

During this time the employer assesses suitability for the role.

Unfortunately, I do not believe you are a suitable fit for the role you were hired for, and as a result, as Operations Manager, I am compelled to end the employment at this stage.”

The reason for the decision made by the Deli manager to terminate the Complainant’s employment was because she was not the right fit for the work. She denied that the Complainant had ever reported any form of assault or discrimination. The Complainant’s dismissal had nothing to do with these issues or with the Complainant’s race/nationality.

The Complainant disputed the entirety of the Deli Manager’s evidence. She put to the Deli Manager that she did complain about discrimination and that she did report the alleged assault. The Deli Manager denied that this was so.

The Complainant’s mother Rhonda Hale gave evidence on affirmation. Ms. Hale was also employed by the Respondent for exactly the same period of time and doing the same work as the Complainant. She was dismissed on the same day as the Complainant.  She said that she personally witnessed the assault on the Complainant. She thought it occurred on the 4th of September 2023. Breakfast service was ending, and the staff were about to switch to lunch service. Ms. Hale was standing getting cold food ready for lunch service. She looked to her left and there seemed to be a commotion at the hot food bar. The Supervisor was “barking” at the Complainant but the witness could not hear what was being said as the area was noisy. The Complainant looked confused. The Supervisor turn away from the Complainant. She was carrying an oven paddle, and she jabbed it behind her. It seemed to the witness that there was no reason for the Supervisor to jab the paddle behind her as the counter where it belonged was in front of her. A male member of staff saw what happened and looked surprised. The witness saw another female member of staff and heard her say to the Supervisor: “Did you just hit Zoe?”. She said this twice. The witness thought that the Supervisor may have said something, but she didn’t hear what it was. She saw the Complainant walk out. The witness confirmed that she did not report what she saw to the Deli Manager.

Ms. Hale also testified that she was present when the Deli Manager made a telephone call to the Complainant in the afternoon of the 5th of September 2023. The Complainant put the call on speaker She thought the call was received at around 2pm. The Complainant had already left work, and the witness travelled to meet her. She was due to clock out later, but she clocked out earlier. In cross-examination it was put to Ms. Hale that the Respondent’s records indicated that she clocked out at 3:01 pm and that she could not have been present for the call which, according to the Deli Manager’s telephone records, showed that the call was made at 2:32 pm. It was further put to the Complainant that she did not clock out earlier than 3 pm and cctv images were put to her showing her clocking out at 3:01 pm. The witness accepted that the cctv images were of her at that time. She could not explain how she was present on the call at 2:32 when she did not clock out from work until 3:01.

Regarding the alleged assault the witness said that she did not intervene to protect her daughter as only an hour and a half earlier she had herself had a very negative interaction with that Supervisor. It was put to her that she made no mention of the alleged assault until she submitted her own HR Report on the 13th of September 2023, after the dismissal. It was put to her that even that report did not give specifics of the assault in the detail that was provided in evidence, in particular there was no mention of the Supervisor allegedly hitting the Complainant with a paddle. The witness said that when she submitted this report, she had no intention of initiating the present proceedings

Findings On the Evidence

There were inconsistencies as between the various submissions and accounts of the events submitted and relied upon by the Complainant. Although cited as evidence these accounts and submissions were not contemporaneous and are not evidence as such.  The Complainant’s evidence was inconsistent with the documents and submissions provided in many respects and she was unclear about the dates of the meetings and incidents which was surprising given the graphic description of those events which she gave.

The Complainant initially accepted that she did not report the treatment of customers to the Deli Manager and later in her evidence she said that she did include “racism towards customers” when she complained to the Deli Manager. She was unsure of the dates of many of the incidents, including the alleged assault.  She corrected herself in evidence several times. Regarding the assault incident she initially described it as a deliberate assault. She then gave several different accounts as to what happened all of which differed from the accounts outlined in her submissions and other documentation. She said that she “felt like” the supervisor hit her with the paddle on purpose and did not apologise afterwards. No written complaint was made about the alleged assault even though this could easily have been done.

The evidence of the Complainant’s mother was far from clear regarding the alleged assault and the failure by both her and the Complainant to explain how she could have been beside the Complainant when she received a call from the Deli Manager even though she, the Complainant’s mother was still at work when the call was made, undermines her credibility and that of the Complainant. Even if that were not the case, I am of the view that the evidence of the Complainant and that of her mother was unreliable.

I am not obliged to make findings of fact as to exactly what occurred on the Deli floor or in the meetings with the Deli Manager but rather my task is to assess whether in all of the circumstances the Complainant has established facts from which an inference of discrimination can be made. My conclusion on this fundamental issue is that the Complainant has failed to establish credible evidence to establish any such facts. Specifically, she has failed to establish credible evidence to establish that she reported the alleged or any discrimination, racist conduct, racist language or a deliberate assault.  In such circumstances the claims of victimisation, harassment and discriminatory dismissal are unsustainable.

The complainant was not discriminated against, victimised or harassed.

The Respondent did not dismiss the Complainant on discriminatory grounds.

Employment Equality Act, Sections 2, 14A(7), 74(2), 85A (1) - Teresa Mitchell v Southern Health Board (Cork University Hospital) AEE/99/8, [2001] - Hallinan v. Moy Valley Resources DEC-S2008-025 - Minaguchi v Mr. Ray Byrne, T/A Wineport Lakeshore Restaurant DEC-E/2002/20 - Cork City Council v. McCarthy, Labour Court, EDA0821 - Dyflin Publications Ltd. v. Spasic EDA0823 - Madarassy v Nomura International plc, [2007] IRLR 246