Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Juija  Levicka

Lidl Ireland Gmbh

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

Karina Jelisejeva

Frank Sugrue B.L.

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-00057325-001

23/06/2023

The complainant made a complaint under the Equal Status Act on behalf of her daughter, who was 15 at the time, in relation to her treatment by the respondent at their store in Navan. This complaint was made on the grounds of Race and Age. Section 3(3)(a) of the Equal Status Acts states: “Treating a person who has not attained the age of 18 years less favourably or more favourably than another, whatever that person’s age shall not be regarded as discrimination on the age ground”. I therefore have no jurisdiction to investigate the complaint on the grounds of age. My investigation is limited to the complaint on the grounds of race.

The complainant submits that on two occasions, 17 January and 23 January 2023, the respondent refused to serve her daughter and asked her to leave the store.

After the first incident the complainant went to the store on the evening of 17 January and spoke to the General Manager. The General Manager apologised and said it would not happen again. He also explained that some students had caused anti-social behaviour and shoplifting and Lidl had made a policy not to serve unaccompanied students for this and health and safety reasons.

On 19 January the daughter went to the same store unsupervised and she was served without any issues.

The complaint’s daughter was again refused service and asked to leave the store on 23 January 2023.

The school informed students, including the complainant’s daughter, that there were incidents of shoplifting by some pupils and Lidl no longer allows students from the school on its premises.

After these incidents the complainant submits her daughter felt discriminated against on the grounds of her migrant background. Moreover, she feels humiliated, harassed and ashamed. She feels judged and accused of something she has never done. She believes she has been unfairly treated and that Lidl’s policy at this store disproportionately affected her and other pupils from the same school who are mainly from migrant backgrounds of from low-income families. The complainant submits this amounts to indirect discrimination on the grounds of her nationality and migrant background.

The complainant submits the respondent has failed to objectively justify a legitimate aim for implementing a policy of not serving unsupervised students from the complainant’s daughter’s school.

The respondent denies the complainant’s daughter was treated less favourably than another person who is not a member of “a migrant background”, as described in the complaint form.

There were historical issues at this store with anti-social behaviour from minors from local schools. This directly related to dangerous loitering by minors on the Lidl premises which was posing a potentially unsafe environment for minors, customers and employees. This issue was highlighted in a Health Service Authority visit to the store.

The Store Manager phoned all the schools in the area to inform them that on account of health and safety issues the store will be requiring anyone under the age of eighteen to be accompanied by an adult. In order to advise customers of this temporary measure the store manager and store responsible person would attend at the front door of the store during peak periods of minors attending the store to advise them they will need to be supervised by an adult if attending the store. In time, with the increase in security, the temporary requirement for minors to attend the store under the supervision of an adult was lifted.

On receipt of the ES1 form from the complainant the respondent investigated the incidents. It is noted that the allegations in the ES1 referred only to discrimination on the grounds of age only.

On both mornings the complainant entered the Lidl store and a Lidl employee approached the complainant’s daughter and advised her that following dialogue with the Health & Safety Authority it was recommended that all minors under the age of 18 are to be supervised by an adult due to health and safety grounds.

A second complaint form made the allegation of indirect discrimination on the grounds of race in relation to the same incidents. The Lidl employee had no knowledge of the complainant’s daughter’s race or ethnicity. At no juncture did any Lidl employee make any comment to the complainant’s daughter in relation to her appearance, clothing, accent or any sort of potential ethnicity or nationality indicator. She would have been treated in the exact same manner regardless of ethnicity or race. The requirement was for all minors attending the store to be accompanied by an adult.

The respondent submits that all its’ employees receive Dignity in the Workplace Training and further instore training to ensure such incidents do not occur. Additionally, the respondent has a Diversity & Inclusion Policy which aims to engage employees and foster a culture of inclusivity driven by their core values – Respect, Recognition, Responsibility and Trust.

The respondent submits the complainant has failed to establish facts from which a prima facie case of discrimination can be made.

The complainant made complaints against the respondent of their treatment of her daughter on the grounds of age and race. As stated above, in accordance with section 3(3)(a) of the Equal Status Act, I have no jurisdiction to investigate the complaint on the grounds of age.

I am investigating the complainants of direct and indirect discrimination on the grounds of race. Section 3 (1)(a) of the Equal Status Act states; “discrimination shall be taken to occur … where a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds”. The race ground says discrimination can occur …… between any two persons …. that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins”.

The respondent stated they treated all those under eighteen in the same way in implementing their policy that they must be accompanied by an adult. The complainant gave evidence in how her daughter was treated but gave no evidence that anyone else was treated differently. I therefore find the complainant is unable to demonstrate a prima facie case of direct discrimination occurred.    

Indirect discrimination is defined in Section 3 (1)(c) and states “discrimination shall be taken to occur where an apparently neutral provision puts a person referred to in any paragraph of section 3(2) at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons, unless the provision is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.” In this case that “apparently neutral provision” is the store’s policy of not serving anyone under 18 unless they are accompanied by an adult. The complainant says this policy “particularly disadvantaged” her daughter and other pupils from a migrant background attending the same school. This is because the school has a high number of pupils from a migrant background, and the school is closest to the Lidl store who implemented the policy.

The respondent says they treated everyone the same, regardless of their uniform and they would be unaware of the complainant’s and other students background before they spoke to them. They also contend that the complainant has failed to provide evidence of the background to the pupils from each school in the area to support her allegation.

In the circumstances I find the complainant is unable to demonstrate a prima facie case of indirect discrimination occurred.

For the reasons given above I find that I have no jurisdiction to investigate this complaint on the grounds of age.

For the reasons given above I find that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie complaint of direct or indirect discrimination on the grounds of race.

No jurisdiction – age