Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Norma  Burke

 Press Photographers Ireland CLG

Representatives

  Self-represented

Elaine Davern-Wiseman BL instructed by Bernadette Barry & Co Solicitors

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00061919-001

01/03/2024

The complainant claimed discrimination on grounds of gender in relation to membership of the respondent association, contrary to the Equal Status Act 2000, as amended.

The respondent raised various preliminary issues, including the application of the Act to the respondent association and the complainant’s locus standi to pursue the claims.  It submitted that there was no prima facie case of discrimination for the respondent to meet. 

The complainant attempted to become a member of the respondent association in or around August and September 2023.  When she could not establish from the respondent’s website how to apply or who to get in touch with, she emailed the respondent at its information address.  The way the complainant was treated thereafter amounted to direct discrimination.  The respondent’s membership criteria and requirements were indirectly discriminatory.

The complainant confirmed at the hearing that the relevant protected ground under the Equal Status Act 2000 was that of gender, and that there was no complaint of discrimination on grounds of disability. 

In communications with the respondent, the complainant was insulted in a gendered manner.   The respondent is an association made up of nearly 90% male members, which is as a direct result of the respondent’s membership criteria.  The association has only had one female president, and awards panels have lacked gender balance.  Many male members of the respondent association do not work as photographers on a full-time basis.   Only a handful of people work as full-time staff photographers, most work part-time or on a freelance basis.  Based on the makeup of the sector, the full-time requirement is only applied by the respondent on an ad hoc basis. It simply isn’t possible that all the respondent’s members work full-time as photojournalists.

The respondent told the complainant she was ineligible to apply for membership because of her student status.

The respondent’s specification that part-time workers are inadmissible for membership of the respondent disproportionately affects female workers and prevents female photographers from joining the professional association in their area of work.  The complainant referred to Central Statistics Office data.  Other members do not meet the criteria the complainant was told she had to meet and have become members on less onerous terms. 

The respondent’s membership criteria indirectly discriminate against women as it is disproportionately hard for them to meet the required threshold of 80% of income that the respondent claims members must meet.  Women are statistically more likely than men to be working on a part-time basis.  Women are statistically more likely to be studying in third level education.  Women are statistically more likely to have childcare or caring responsibilities.  The respondent’s requirement to work full time is not a neutral requirement.  The respondent will not include part-time workers, and membership is automatically denied to women on a disproportionate basis.  

The respondent should be assisting females in the photojournalism profession and taking positive action to rectify the gender imbalance in its organisation.

In response to the preliminary issues raised on behalf of the respondent, the complainant submitted that the services of the respondent organisation were denied to her.  The complainant has standing to pursue this claim as she was told she was not eligible to participate in the respondent’s process.

The complainant’s full-time student status excluded her from being eligible and that was the end of the conversation with the respondent. It seems clear that the respondent will only accept full-time workers.  There has been no indication of a change in the respondent’s position.    

The complainant submitted documentation in support of her case in advance of, and at the hearing.

Summary of complainant’s sworn evidence

The complainant is a photojournalist and visual journalist, whose work has featured in media and been licensed to various outlets.  Photojournalism is the complainant’s full-time vocation and currently her part-time profession due to full-time study on a photography degree programme.  Photojournalism is the only paid work the complainant does.  Women working in the complainant’s profession are in the minority, and this is evident to the complainant in the work she undertakes.

The complainant attempted to become a member of the respondent association, the only professional association for press photographers in Ireland.  The respondent provides a membership service with certain benefits attached, which include being in an association with your peers, entering a prestigious annual awards ceremony and beneficial photo acquisition perks.  The respondent’s service is a social and status enhancing membership service.  The complainant wants to belong to an association with her peers and to access the opportunities that membership brings.  

The respondent’s joining process is not clear and transparent; there are unreasonable obstacles to joining in place.  It was very difficult for the complainant to establish how to apply and who she was dealing with.  To this day, the complainant remains in the dark on the exact specifications for eligibility.  The discrimination is ongoing.  The respondent’s process further to the complainant’s request for information on the membership application process was onerous, humiliating and degrading. 

The complainant ultimately did not apply to become a member of the respondent association; she had been told she was ineligible because of her status as a student and did not want to subject herself to further humiliation.  The complainant was told that the criteria for membership required members to be working on a full-time basis and that she did not meet the criteria.  Full-time was never defined. The respondent’s communication of 5 September 2023 advised that the joining process is by application, not negotiation, and directed the complainant to speak with her college tutor.  The complainant considered the respondent’s comments in emails to be gender-based and did not believe that a male photographer would have received the same comments, for example being told to go speak with your tutor, proposer and seconder.   The complainant understood the meaning of the respondent’s membership criteria to be that no part-time workers can apply. 

It was simply not possible for the complainant to evidence the discrimination.

Under cross-examination, the complainant was asked about her complaint of exclusion of part-time photographers from and within the respondent organisation.  The complainant maintained she was excluded and told she was ineligible because she didn’t work full-time and because she was a part-time photographer.   There was no express reference to gender in the emails between the complainant and respondent in August and September 2023, but the emails were gendered in that the complainant was treated in a dismissive manner in being told to speak with tutors and proposers and there was more respectful treatment given to others.  The complainant thought she was belittled and dismissed because of her gender and referred in this regard to an email of 5 September 2023 which was neither welcoming nor inclusive.  The complainant did not accept that an email of 28 August 2023 was clear in setting out the respondent’s requirements.  The complainant accepted that there was no express reference to hours in the respondent’s criteria.  It was not the complainant’s case that the respondent’s criteria were directly discriminatory, and the complainant accepted there were 2 separate membership criteria.  In relation to the second criteria, the complainant maintained that there was an implicit full-time hours requirement.  The complainant did not tell the respondent that 100% of her income was from press work because this was not asked. The complainant understood that her student status automatically disqualified her.    The emails relied upon by the complainant from August and September 2023 were all part of a process before application.  The complainant could not recall answering an email of 28 August 2023 which asked whether the complainant was a part-time photographer.   The complainant accepted that she was sent an application form on 31 August 2023 but did not accept that the criteria set out therein were clear because of what had been referred to in preceding emails between the parties.   The complainant accepted that there was no mention on the form to working full-time, however, by that stage, she had been told that she was ineligible to apply.  The complainant did not submit an application form for consideration by the committee because she had already been told by the respondent that she was ineligible for membership because she did not work full-time.  The complainant described as ludicrous the suggestion that she would submit an application form with a full set of accounts after being told she was ineligible to apply.  The complainant accepted that the respondent did not use the word ‘ineligible’, but an email from the respondent of 31 August 2023 clearly meant she was ineligible. The complainant commenced a process and was unsuccessful in the process. 90% of the respondent’s membership is male, in other words those who were successful in the process.  The complainant described her humiliation as a professional journalist in being deemed ineligible by the respondent and being told to speak with her tutor.  This was labelling as a student photographer and was the sticking point for her eligibility.  The complainant is a full-time photographer, not in terms of hours but because it is her primary profession, and a full-time student.  The comments made by the respondent were gendered because they were belittling and dismissive and are the type of comments that women face.  

The respondent raised a number of preliminary issues, including that it does not provide a service or dispose of goods and therefore is not subject to the Equal Status Act 2000, as amended, and that the complainant did not have locus standi to maintain the case against the respondent. It submitted that no application for membership was ever made by the complainant, the case was entirely misconceived and there was no prima facie case of discrimination for the respondent to meet.

Over a 13-day period from 24 August to 5 September 2023, the respondent replied to numerous emails from the complainant and engaged in a telephone call.  There was no mention of gender in any of the emails and nothing that could be construed as discriminatory or discrimination on grounds of gender.  All roles in the respondent organisation are carried out on a voluntary basis.

The respondent is an association of full-time press photographers.  Its constitution sets out the aims and objectives of the association, which include, promoting excellence in press photography, promoting the professional interests of its members and promoting the association on a national and international basis.  The standards and restrictions of the association are very important.  Membership is held by full-time staff or freelance photographers resident in Ireland whose work is mainly devoted to press photography, professional photographers whose journalistic earnings exceed 80% of their total annual income and honorary members.  The respondent does not define full-time, income or mandate a minimum number of hours.  The burden is on an applicant to show that their journalistic earnings exceed 80% of their total annual income, if that is the category under which they are applying for membership. 

The respondent distinguished the case of Barbara Lindberg v Press Photographer’s Association of Ireland (S2011-041) on the basis of a different factual matrix in that case; of particular note was that the respondent had a different constitution and application form at the time, and that the complainant in that case had made two applications to join the respondent association.   It was submitted that the complainant in this case had not engaged in the application process and the respondent could not have commented on the complainant’s eligibility because the complainant had never in fact made an application.

A full-time requirement is expressed on the respondent’s membership application form.  It’s a gender-neutral statement.  An 80% of income requirement in the case of freelance photographers is a self-determining requirement and in no way discriminatory.  The respondent is entitled to set criteria for membership. 

The complainant has failed to refer to a comparator and there is no evidence of less favourable treatment on grounds of gender. 

There was no oral evidence tendered on behalf of the respondent.

The complainant asserts both direct and indirect discrimination in contravention of the Equal Status Act 2000, as amended, (the “Act”).

The Legal Framework

Discrimination for the purposes of the Act is defined in section 3 and includes direct discrimination, 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 protected grounds, and indirect discrimination.

A claim for redress must be referred in accordance with the time limits set out in section 21 of the Act.  As per section 21(6) of the Act, save for reasonable cause, a claim for redress in respect of prohibited conduct must be referred within 6 months of the date of the occurrence or, as the case may be, the date of its most recent occurrence.

The prohibition of discrimination in the disposal of goods and provision of services is set out in section 5(1) of the Act as follows:-

“A person shall not discriminate in disposing of goods to the public generally or a section of the public or in providing a service, whether the disposal or provision is for consideration or otherwise and whether the service provided can be availed of only by a section of the public.”

Section 2 of the Act defines “service” as meaning

“… a service or facility of any nature which is available to the public generally or a section of the public, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, includes—

(a) access to and the use of any place,

(b) facilities for—

(i) banking, insurance, grants, loans, credit or financing,

(ii) entertainment, recreation or refreshment,

(iii) cultural activities, or

(iv) transport or travel,

(c) a service or facility provided by a club (whether or not it is a club holding a certificate of registration under the Registration of Clubs Acts, 1904 to 1999) which is available to the public generally or a section of the public, whether on payment or without payment, and

(d) a professional or trade service,

but does not include pension rights (within the meaning of the Employment Equality Act, 1998) or a service or facility in relation to which that Act applies;”

Section 38A of the Act addresses the burden of proof in proceedings under the Act and provides:-

“(1) Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a person from which it may be presumed that prohibited conduct has occurred in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.”

Application of the law

Time limits

The notification requirements on a complainant under section 21(2) of the Act were fulfilled.

I have considered the date of referral of the case to the Commission on 1 March 2024 and the relevant time limits in section 21 of the Act, and am satisfied that the claim has been referred within 6 months of the date of the most recent occurrence of the prohibited conduct to which the case relates. 

Communications in respect of the application process commenced with an email from the complainant of 24 August 2023 expressing her interest in joining the respondent association.  There followed communications between the parties over 27 August, 28 August, 29 August, 31 August, 1 September and 5 September 2023, which communications are the subject of a claim of direct discrimination.  The respondent’s membership criteria are the subject of a claim of indirect discrimination.

Emails from the complainant to the respondent in May and June 2024, querying whether the respondent now allows part-time photographers to join as members, are not relevant to my determination on the time limits.  The complainant, through these emails, was seeking to revisit or reignite the subject matter of her claims and, such efforts, including the lack of response to her emails, do not constitute occurrence of discriminatory conduct for the purpose of determining time limits under section 21 of the Act.

The respondent’s Form ES.2, dated 18 October 2023, reiterated a requirement on the part of the respondent for membership, namely being a full-time press photographer for a minimum period of 2 years.  The emails preceding the last email from the respondent to the complainant of 5 September 2023 concerned the respondent’s membership criteria.  The email of 5 September from the respondent confirmed the membership criteria previously advised and, notwithstanding the respondent having sent the complainant an application form, informed the complainant it would be the end of correspondence between the parties and wished her well with her studies. 

Based on section 21(11) of the Act, I am satisfied that the facts set out above concerning the impugned membership criteria fall within the scope of section 21(11)(b) and, as such, that the claim has been referred within time.

Provision of a service

This case relates to the criteria or requirements for membership of the respondent association, and the complainant’s interactions with the respondent in and around August and September 2023 in relation to the membership application process.

The complainant submitted that the respondent provides a service of association with peers, social and status enhancing benefits and opportunities.  It was submitted on behalf of the respondent at the hearing that the respondent did not provide a service and accordingly was not subject to the Act.  I have established that the respondent’s services include showcasing of work, promotion of professional interests, organisation of an annual awards ceremony and issuing of a nationally recognised membership or identification card.

I have very carefully considered the nature of the prohibited conduct complained of in this case and whether the respondent’s activities come within the scope of the Act.

The constitution of the respondent organisation details the organisation’s aims and objectives in the following terms:-

“The aims of the PPAI will be:-

(a)    Promoting excellence in Press Photography.

(b)    Promoting the professional interests of its members.

(c)     Promoting the PPAI on a national and international basis by organising photographic competitions and by holding seminars and public exhibitions of the members’ work, when and wherever possible.

(d)    Obtaining the best possible co-operation for the performance of the members’ work.

(e)    Promoting the spirit of solidarity and mutual aid throughout the world by affiliation with similar bodies and by participation in worldwide photographic competitions.”

I note the respondent’s submission prior to the hearing on section 22 of the Act which appeared to concede provision of a service by its statement that no denial of service occurred as no application form had been submitted.

In terms of the service of association and benefits, I understand section 2(1)(d) of the Act in defining service to refer to the nature of the service available to the public generally or a section of the public, as opposed to the nature of the organisation, and note that a service or facility provided by a club, whether registered or otherwise, which is available to the public generally or a section of the public, whether on payment or without payment, is included in the definition at section 2(1)(c).  It was not submitted that the respondent was a private association or club.  I am satisfied, having regard to the generality of the definition of “service” in section 2, the non-exhaustive list of services and facilities included within that definition, and the remedial nature of the statute, that the respondent’s activities come within the general definition of a service available to a section of the public, namely working press photographers

I do not find merit in the respondent’s contention that because the complainant did not submit an application for membership of the respondent association, she was not refused or denied a service.  Section 5 of the Act provides for a prohibition on discrimination in the provision of a service, this goes beyond denial or refusal of a service, and I am satisfied that it covers the matters complained of by the complainant in this case, namely the membership criteria and communications between the complainant and respondent on the matter of becoming a member of the respondent association.

Claims of discrimination on grounds of gender

The complainant’s claims are that the respondent directly discriminated against her on grounds of gender in its communications regarding the application process, and that the respondent’s membership criteria are indirectly discriminatory. 

Direct discrimination on grounds of gender

The complainant considered the respondent’s comments in emails between the complainant and respondent concerning the respondent’s membership process and criteria to be gendered and gender-based in that the emails were unwelcoming, dismissive, and belittling, for example the complainant being told to go speak with her college tutor, proposer and seconder.  The complainant submitted that the emails contained the type of comments faced by women.   The complainant did not believe a male would be treated in the same way.

The complainant submitted that it was not possible for her to evidence the discrimination.

Discrimination is defined as less favourable treatment on one or more of the protected grounds, of which gender is one.  The burden of proof under section 38A of the Act requires the complainant to establish facts of a sufficiently significant nature such as to raise an inference of discrimination.   Mere assertions or speculation, unsupported by evidence, will not constitute facts upon which an inference of discrimination can be drawn.

In this claim of direct discrimination, the matters to be addressed by the complainant in discharge of the burden of proof are that she was subjected to less favourable treatment compared to a male in a comparable situation.  

I have carefully considered the emails between the parties.  The complainant raised a number of queries in multiple emails to the respondent.  In its responses, the respondent suggested on two occasions that the complainant might seek guidance or consult with her proposer, seconder or tutor on her queries.  In another email, the respondent tells the complainant that further guidance should come from her proposer, seconder or college tutor.  By its emails, the respondent undoubtedly seeks to redirect the complainant’s queries and to conclude communications with the complainant. 

Whilst the complainant clearly thought it inappropriate that she speak with her college tutor about her application to join the respondent association, and I understand her discomfort at having to ask members whether they were a member in good standing so that they could propose and second her application, I am not satisfied that gender discrimination can be inferred from the respondent’s direction of the complainant to her college tutor, proposer and seconder, or from any of the respondent’s communications with the complainant.

I am not satisfied the complainant has set out facts from which an inference of discrimination can be drawn.   I am not satisfied of a nexus between the treatment complained of and the complainant’s gender, or that it was less favourable treatment.  I find that assertions about gendered communications or gender-based communications are just that.  I find that the complainant has not made out a prima facie case of direct discrimination on grounds of gender contrary to the Act.

Indirect discrimination

Issue was taken on behalf of the respondent with the complainant’s locus standi to maintain the claim of indirect discrimination. 

Indirect discrimination is provided for in section 3(1)(c) of the Act; it is taken to occur “where an apparently neutral provision would put a person … 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.”

The provision asserted by the complainant to be indirectly discriminatory was the respondent’s membership criteria and a requirement to work full-time.  The complainant asserted that a requirement to work full-time hours was indirect discrimination of females as they are statistically more likely than males to be working on a part-time basis. The complainant expressed variously in her evidence that the respondent’s membership criteria were indirectly discriminatory on grounds of gender and of full-time students.

Given the remit of the Act, I am concerned with a claim of indirect discrimination on grounds of gender.  ‘Provision’ in the concept of indirect discrimination is broadly defined in the Act and includes a contractual term or requirement, criterion, practice and regime.  The respondent’s membership criteria is the impugned provision, which the complainant understood to exclude part-time workers from membership.  The complainant submitted that this disproportionately affected females compared with males. 

The complainant is a female photojournalist who expressed an interest in joining the respondent association. I am satisfied that the complainant has locus standi to maintain this claim of indirect discrimination on grounds of gender.

The complainant submitted that the respondent’s specification that part-time workers are inadmissible for membership of the respondent association disproportionately affects female workers and prevents female photographers from joining the association.  It was submitted that the respondent will only accept as members those who are engaged in full-time work and that this disproportionately impacts on females who are statistically more likely to have childcare or caring responsibilities or to be in 3rd level education, and therefore it is disproportionately harder for them to meet the respondent’s requirement for membership to be working full-time and the 80% of income threshold.  

The respondent submitted that membership is open to full-time staff or freelance photographers whose work is mainly devoted to press photography based on an earnings threshold.  It referred in this regard to its constitution, membership application form and the emails between the complainant and members of the respondent’s association.

The nature of the indirect discrimination claim is grounded on the respondent operating and applying membership criteria which excluded part-time workers from membership.  I am not satisfied of the existence of such a provision within the meaning of section 3(1)(c) of the Act for the following reasons.

The respondent’s membership secretary emailed the complainant on 28 August 2023 setting out the initial membership requirements, namely that one must be:-

(a)    Full time staff or freelance photographer/videographer resident in Ireland whose work (80%) is mainly devoted to newspapers, magazines and other media outlets for press photographers.

(b)    Full membership is open to the professional photographers whose journalistic earnings exceed 80% of their total annual income.

It is worth at this point setting out Article 1 of the respondent’s constitution on membership:-

“Membership of the Association is held by:

(a)    Full time staff or freelance photographers resident in Ireland whose work is mainly devoted to newspapers, magazines and other outlets for press photographers.

(b)    Full membership of the Association is open to the professional photographers whose journalistic earnings exceed 80% of their total annual income.

(c)     Honorary members.”

It is clear from (a) and (b) above, in both the email and the relevant article of the respondent’s constitution, that a photographer may be self-employed and that there is no minimum hours of work threshold.  The thrust of the foregoing is that membership of the association is contingent on those engaged in photography as a primary profession, source of work or income.  I am satisfied that this provision encompasses professional photographers working on a part-time basis, provided their journalistic earnings exceed 80% of their total annual income. 

The complainant expressly acknowledged this provision in an email to the respondent and proceeded to query its application by the respondent by referencing current members working part time and in other areas:-

“I'm currently a full time student but a working press photographer but 80% of my work would be for press. Reviewing the current membership, do all your current members meet this criteria as it does not appear so to me? Many are part time and work in other areas. I can't see a press credit this year for some. Kind regards, …”

After a telephone conversation between the membership secretary and the complainant on 29 August 2023, the complainant in an email thanks the membership secretary for their time in explaining the membership process and requests an application form.  The complainant reiterates in her email that she is a full-time student and full-time photographer. 

An email of 31 August 2023 from the respondent’s membership secretary gives rise to subsequent queries on the part of the complainant and, in my view, is the genesis of the within claim.  In that email it is stated:-

“After further scrutiny of your initial inquiry and consultation unfortunately Norma I’m afraid I can’t progress an application for you given your status as a full time student. PPAI members are required to be full time photographers.  I too are heading out of the country for the next few week so I won’t be dealing with this matter. Good luck in your studies and I’m sure when you decide to take up press photography as a full time occupation your application will be taken much more favourable.”

On foot of this, the complainant contacts the respondent association’s president, refers to being prevented from applying and again requests an application form.

The respondent’s president responds to the complainant referring to her status as a full-time student and therefore not a full-time press photographer.  In an email in response, the complainant notes the confusion around her status and reiterates that she is a full-time photographer.

The complainant is then sent an application form by the membership secretary.

The application form requires an applicant to demonstrate through supporting documentation employment as a press photographer or work as a freelance press photographer and to provide documentary evidence that the applicant derives at least 80% of all earnings from press photography. 

Further emails between the complainant and respondent ensue with the complainant querying how the respondent defines full-time, and other queries relating to the respondent’s application process.

The email communications between the parties were not fulsome in the exchange of information and the use of the words ‘full-time’ has clearly given rise to much confusion.  The complainant failed to answer the respondent’s question about whether she was a part-time photographer.  The complainant never told the respondent that 100% of her income was from press work.  The respondent made assumptions about the complainant’s status as a full-time student, and therefore not a working press photographer and sought to redirect the complainant’s queries.

There were inconsistencies in the complainant’s submissions and oral evidence in relation to the claim that the respondent’s criteria specified part-time workers as inadmissible for membership.  The complainant in her emails refers to members of the respondent association being part-time and working in other areas.  The complainant’s oral evidence was that she knew of part-time workers who were admitted to membership and that it was her student status that automatically disqualified her from membership.  The complainant in emails to the respondent referred to full-time meaning a primary profession as opposed to hours worked.  The complainant accepted in evidence that there were two separate criteria for membership. 

I am satisfied that the criteria for membership of the respondent association included part-time and freelance photographers whose primary source of annual income derives from press photography or journalistic earnings.  The 80% threshold of total income did not require a photographer, male or female, to be working full-time hours.  The requirement related to income as evidence of primary profession and was unrelated to hours of work or employment status.   Nowhere in the communications in August and September 2023 did the respondent convey as a requirement of membership that one be a photographer working full-time hours.  I am further satisfied that such a requirement was not communicated to the complainant in her telephone conversation with the membership secretary.  

Accordingly, I find that the evidence did not support the existence of a provision that excluded part-time working press photographers from membership or one that automatically denied membership to females.  I further am not satisfied of any basis for the complainant’s understanding or belief that the 80% of income requirement carried an implicit full-time hours requirement.  I also have reservations about the variance in the complainant’s description of her status as a full-time photographer in communications with the respondent, and as a part-time photographer in her claims before the WRC.  I find that the complainant has misconstrued the relevant criteria for membership. 

The complainant submitted data showing numbers and percentage of female and male workers in 2008 and 2018 by reference to usual hours worked.  I do not consider such data to assist the complainant in making out a prima facie case of indirect discrimination under the Act.  Membership of the respondent association is open to working press photographers.  It follows that information or data relevant to the nature of the claim asserted by the complainant would pertain to female and male working press photographers by reference to working hours in the respondent’s membership. 

There was no information before me to indicate disadvantage or the risk of disadvantage of female working press photographers compared with male working press photographers by the respondent’s membership criteria.  I am also not satisfied that female working press photographers are statistically more likely to be studying in 3rd level education than male working press photographers, as asserted by the complainant.

In the circumstances, I find that the complainant has not made out a prima facie case of indirect discrimination.

For the reasons set out above, I find that the respondent did not engage in prohibited conduct within the meaning of the Act.  I therefore find that the complainant’s claims of direct and indirect discrimination are not well founded.

Equal Status Act 2000 – Service – Professional association – Membership criteria - Time limits – Locus standi –Communications - Direct discrimination – Indirect discrimination