Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A parent

A school

Representatives

  In person

Paul McDonald , AJP McDonald Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00054665-001

24/01/2023

The complainant submitted this complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 24th January 2023. The complaint has been submitted under section 21 of the Equal Status Act 2000.

I have decided to anonymise the decision for the sake of the child involved.

Original complaint to the WRC

In relation to the conduct of the Board of Management of Respondent National School:

Commencing Fri, Mar 6, 2015 10:55 in a continuum and most recently at Respondent National School on Mon 5th Dec 2022 [approx..] 15:45

Pursuant to, in addition to and by way of continuation of complaint referenced ADJ-0000024762: CA-00031399

You “directly discriminated” against me on gender + civil status grounds, a child’s [separated] parent [of male gender] by treating me less favourable than [other parents +] the child’s other parent / mother, [of female gender], [there being no other difference between us] has been, or would be treated in a comparable situation on the protected grounds under the Equal Status Acts of (gender, civil status, religion, victimisation, etc) by [for example]:

A.     (a) Enrolling my child in your school without my consent

B.     (b) Continually + persistently ignoring my wishes in favour of those of the child’s mother (e.g., uncontrolled dissemination of personal information to third parties in violation of my expressed dissent in the production of Christmas cards, for which consent was expressly sought etc.]

C.      c) From my email of Sat, 29 Oct 2022 at 11:45

i)                 The ‘permissions page’ states that all permissions have been granted, though I have not consented to any of the following:

ii)                220912_16:0_12.09.22 after school clubs [no consent form received no consent given]

iii)              220927_10:11_27.09.22 self evaluation form [no consent form received no consent given]

iv)              220927_11:57 27.09.22 family mass permission slip

v)                220928_12:03 28.09.22 Consent for orienteering

vi)              221010_14:16 10.10.22 Christmas cards

vii)             221013_14:13 13.10.22 “gathering permissions” [not defined]

D.     Conducting parent teacher meetings with me in unique manner + treating me less favourably than [other parents /] the child’s other parent / mother, [of female gender,] has been, or would be treated in a comparable situation.

You harassed me by exercising unwanted conduct [including but not limited to acts, spoken words + gestures] related to the discriminatory grounds [above] which had the purpose + effect of violating my dignity + creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating + offensive environment for me, where

a)     On the 5th December 2022, at approx. 15:45 you aggressively interfered, ambushed + harassed me – in front of others – on my way to a pre-scheduled parent teacher meeting in the school which had the purpose + effect of violating my dignity + creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating + offensive environment for me

b)     You aggressively hijacked the parent teacher meeting by aggressively positioning yourself in the meeting for the duration of the meeting + continued to verbally harass me in front of others, which had the purpose + effect of violating my dignity + creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating + offensive environment for me.

c)      you created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating + offensive environment for me + aggressively interfered in the parent-teacher-meeting-process + tried, contrary to my wishes + those of the child’s teacher, to terminate the parent teacher meeting before it could even begin.

You “directly discriminated” against me on religious grounds, in violation of my conscience and lawful preference, to send my child to … a particular type of school by enrolling them without my consent, in your catholic school [zealot-ly absent any other religious enlightenment] + thereby prevented me from enjoying my constitutional right to the benefit of exercising my conscience and lawful preference to send my child to … a particular type of school + you did thereafter fail to provide or accommodate [my wished + lawfully preferred,] religious background or outlook in relation to my child, [the protected grounds under the Equal Status Acts of “religious belief”] [which includes “religious background or outlook”];

You ‘directly discriminated’ against me by failing to protect my constitutional right [+ that of my child] as the primary and natural educator of the child and to guarantee to respect my inalienable right and duty as a parent to provide, according to my means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of my child by imposing only your zealot catholic ethos + failing to respect my + my daughter’s religious background or outlook.

You ‘directly discriminated’ against me on the grounds of “victimisation” where I did, previously

a)     (i) … in good faith apply for a determination or redress provided for in the Equal Status Acts,

b)     (ii) attend as a witness before … an Adjudication Officer of the WRC .. in connection with an inquiry or proceedings under the Acts,

c)      (iii) give evidence in other proceedings under the Acts

d)     (iv) opposed by lawful means an act which is unlawful under the Acts, or

e)      (v) given notice of an intention to take “any of the above actions”,

Where I have been treated less favourably on that account, than a person who has not done so, is treated, has been treated or would be treated in otherwise similar circumstances.

Precedent [prime facie]

Prime facie grounds for discrimination established in WRC case ADJ-00013996 [275. a. et seq. (infra.)] pertain

I believe my rights [as parent, joint custodian + joint guardian or the child] were infringed, I believe “… the infringement of the right in question [was] committed deliberately consciously and without justificationby the [educational establishment], which is under a constitutional obligation to respect, vindicate and defend that right.”

“Aggravated by the manner in which the wrong was committed, involving elements as oppressiveness, arrogance or outrage, the conduct of the wrongdoer after the commission of the wrong, such as a refusal to apologise or to ameliorate the harm done or the making of threats torepeat the wrong, and the conduct of the wrongdoer and/or his representatives in the defence of the claim on the wronged plaintiff, up to and including the trial of the action”

I believe I have suffered loss, harm, injury + damage arising from the failure of The Board of Management & Office of Principal of the Respondent National School – through its acts and omissions – to perform their legal obligations, breached their duty [statutory + care] + violated + invaded my rights.

The Board of Management & Office of Principal Respondent National School, parties sufficiently close that it is ‘reasonably foreseeable’ that their negligence, or result of their conduct, would cause loss, harm, injury or damage to me, having a Statutory Duty + Duty of Care to me, by failing to perform a legal obligation + by violating and invading a right did, Breach their Duty, through nonfeasance, misfeasance and malfeasance + in their decision-making process, which injured me, in Causing adverse effects to my rights, by falling short of constitutional standards [in failing to adhere with Reasonable Standards, held with legitimate expectation] of the Law,Natural justice, Due process, Fair Procedure [where no circumstances made the full operation of classic Fair Procedures impractical] and in the absence of the decision taken balancing the effect of any deviation from those standards, failed me, with fair, just and reasonable liability, on a number of counts, in this regard, by denying me my rights – to religious expression or not – as provided for in law [87. et seq. infra.] Causing the loss, harm, injury & damage to me of denial of natural justice, due process, fair procedure & the right to access to education for me + my child.

The Board of Management & Office of Principal Respondent National School did, through their acts or omissions give rise to injury [the invasion + denial of legal rights] + harm to me which the Board of Management & Office of Principal Respondent National School knew or ought to have known would result in a wrong.

The undermining by the BoM of the Constitutional right of parents to ensure that their children do not have to attend religious teaching in schools [Article 44.2.4 per 90.d et eq. infra.] + the inalienable right of parents under Article 42.1 [per 80. Infra.] of the Constitution.

Failure by the Board of Management & Office of Principal Respondent National School to ensure the maintenance of standards in the provision of educational services did give rise to injury [the invasion of legal rights] + harm to me which The Board of Management & Office of Principal Respondent National School knew or ought to have known would result in a wrong.

The Complainant’s submission then referred to the European Convention of Human Rights. The Complainant has inserted the following into his submission:

Article 1 – Obligation to respect Human Rights.

Article 5 – Right to Liberty and Security.

Article 6 – Right to a fair trial.

Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life.

Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

Article 13 – Right to an effective remedy.

Article 14 – Prohibition of discrimination.

Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by Protocol No.11 (Paris, 20th March 1952).

Article 2 – Right to Education:

·        No person shall be denied the right to an education.

·        In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.

Protocol No.7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Strasbourg, 22nd November 1984).

Article 5 – Equality between spouses.

Protocol No.12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Rome, 4th November 2000).

Article 1 – General Prohibition of Discrimination.

The Complainant then referred to the Constitution of Ireland (Bunreacht Na hÉireann) and highlighted the following Articles:

Article 40 – The Individual

Article 41 – The Family

Article 42 – Education

Article 42 A – Children

Article 44 - Religion

The Complainant then referred to the Guardianship of Infants Act (consolidated)

Section 6 - Right of parents to guardianship.

Section 9 – Provisions where two or more guardians appointed.

Equal Status Act 2000 to 2015.

The Complainant has referred to the following sections of the Act:

Section 3 – Discrimination.

Section 4 – Victimisation

Section 7 – Educational Establishments

Education Act 1998

Section 6 – Objects of the Act

Section 15 2 (D) – Functions of a Board.

Section 30 2 (E) – Curriculum

Case Law quoted by Complainant:

Breaches of Constitutional Rights – B V B [1975]IR54 Walsh J

High Court – Campaign to Separate Church and State Ltd + ors. V Minister for Education, 1991/6641P

Conway v Irish National Teachers’ Organisation [1991] 2 IR 305

Workplace Relations Commission – ADJ – 00013996 (19TH December 2019).

A Father v The Board of Management of a Secondary School.

a)     “It is clear that the Respondent was fully aware prior to the completion of the enrolment process of the Complainant’s daughter in the school that there was a dispute between her two legal guardians in relation to this matter. A school has no jurisdiction to decide matters pertaining to guardianship and in circumstances where such parents /legal guardians cannot agree to matters pertaining to their children’s welfare, including decisions relating to education, then such matters must be decided upon by a court”.

On enrolling the child there was no court order.

a)     In the instant case, the Complainant, being a joint legal guardian, was fully entitled to object to the enrolment of his daughter in the Respondent’s school. In the circumstances, I take the view that it was incumbent on the Respondent to bring this objection to the attention of the mother of the Complainant’s daughter and to defer any decision on the enrolment application until this issue has been decided by the courts, being the relevant authority to decide such matters. I am satisfied that the Respondent failed to act in such a manner but instead proceeded to enrol the Complainant’s daughter in the school even though it was fully aware of the dispute between her parents (and legal guardians) in relation to this matter. I find that the Respondent in doing so, subjected the Complainant to discrimination on the grounds of gender in relation to his daughter’s enrolment in the school. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent has failed to rebut the inference of discrimination on the grounds of gender in relation to the enrolment of the Complainant’s daughter in the school in the circumstances of the present case”.

It is about this point that this case turns.

The Respondent failed to defer any decision on the enrolment application until this issue had been decided upon by the courts.

The Respondent failed to act in such a manner but instead proceeded to enrol the Complainant’s daughter in the school even though it was fully aware of the dispute between her parents (and legal guardians) in relation to this matter. I find that the Respondent in doing so, subjected the Complainant to discrimination on the grounds of gender in relation to his daughter’s enrolment in the school.

There was not ‘a statutory obligation on the Respondent to proceed with the enrolment of the Complainant’s daughter at the material time in question given the circumstances that prevailed in relation to this matter’.

The Complainant attached the whole decision in ADJ – 00013996 to his submission.

·        The Respondent school (the “School”) is a recognised school within the meaning of the Education Act 1998. As such it is funded by monies provided by the Oireachtas. It is managed by a Board of Management. The Principal is a member of the Board of Management and manages the school on a day-to-day basis on behalf of the Board of Management.

·        The Complainant is the father of a child who was a pupil in the school from September 2015 to June 2023. She has now graduated to secondary school.

·        The Complainant alleges that he has been discriminated against by the Respondent on the grounds of Gender, Civil Status, Family Status and Religion from 6 March 2015 to 5 December 2022. The Complainant also alleges that he has been victimised by the Respondent due to him having previously applied for a determination for redress provided in the Equal Status Acts, attended as a witness before an Adjudication Officer of the WRC in connection with an enquiry for proceedings under the Acts and gave evidence in other proceedings under the Acts. In this regard it is confirmed that the Complainant previously issued two sets of proceedings against the Respondent alleging discrimination on the grounds of Gender, Civil Status and Family Status. The first set of proceedings issued on 30 January 2020 and were heard before an Adjudication Officer on 16 April 2021. Those proceedings were dismissed. The second set of proceedings issued on 9 November 2021 and were heard before an Adjudication Officer on 12 October 2022. The Complainant failed to attend the hearing without notice to the Respondent and those proceedings were also dismissed.

·        The Complainant has issued the current set of proceedings under the Equal Status Act alleging that he has been discriminated against by the Respondent on the grounds of:

o   Gender

o   Civil Status

o   Family Status

o   Religion.

·        The Respondent denies that the Complainant has been discriminated against on the grounds alleged, or any other ground. The Respondent denies that the Complainant was victimised as alleged or at all.

·        In the Complainant’s “Complaint Form” he sets out a number of examples of where he alleges, he was discriminated against by being treated less favourably than “the child’s other

parent/mother, [of female gender], [there being no other difference between us] has been, or would be treated in a comparable, situation on the protected grounds under the Equal Status Acts of (gender, civil status, religion, victimisation, etc.)”. In particular he sets out the following examples of alleged unfavourable treatment:

a) Enrolling is daughter in the school without his consent.

b) Dissemination of personal information to third parties in violation of his expressed dissent in the production of Christmas cards.

c) Recording that permission had been given to certain activities when he in fact had not consented.

d) The attendance of the Principal at a parent teacher meeting that took place on 5 December 2022.

·        With regard to “a” above it is submitted that this is not an appropriate matter to be considered in these proceedings as the issue of the enrolment of the Complainant’s daughter in the school has already been dealt with in a separate application in which the Complainant’s allegation of discrimination, by virtue of enrolling his daughter in the school without his consent, was dismissed.

·        With regard to “b” above it is submitted that the Respondent has not unlawfully discriminated against the Complainant. In 2021 the Complainant refused to give the requested consent required for his daughter to participate in a Christmas Card project. Notwithstanding the fact that the mother had consented the Respondent adopted the position that in the absence of both parents consenting the child would not be permitted to participate. The Complainant subsequently issued proceedings before the WRC in relation to this matter which said proceedings were listed for hearing on 12 October 2022. The Complainant did not attend the hearing and the proceedings were dismissed. In 2023 the school was running a similar Christmas Card project. The Complainant’s daughter wished to participate in the said project as all of her peers were doing so. Her mother consented and was anxious that her daughter be allowed participate. The Respondent considered the position and decided that the Complainant’s daughter should be allowed participate in the Christmas Card project in what was her final year in primary school. The Respondent wrote to the Complainant on 24 November 2022 setting out the reasons for its decision.

·        With regard to “c” above it is denied that the Respondent discriminated against the Complainant as alleged or at all. The Complainant states that “the permissions page states that all permissions have been granted, though I have not consented to any of the following”. While a number of permission requests were furnished only two featured on the permissions page at the time these proceedings were issued. With regard to the issues raised by the Complainant the following is the position:

       I.          After School Clubs: No consent forms were returned by either parent and the Complainant’s daughter did not participate in any of the after-school clubs.

      II.          The evaluation form was sent to both parents. Both were given the opportunity to complete it and return it to the school. The Complainant did not avail of this opportunity.

    III.          Consent was not an issue.

    IV.          A family mass permission slip was facilitated by the school wherein the permission slip for children who wished to have an active part in the family mass on Sundays was sent to both parents via the Aladdin App. Neither parent returned the form and the Complainant’s daughter did not participate in the Sunday mass.

     V.          Both parents were given the opportunity to consent to the Complainant’s daughter participation in an orienteering trip with her class as part of the PE curriculum. The mother consented via the Aladdin App. The Complainant did not contact the school in this regard although he could have indicated his lack of consent through the App.

    VI.          Both parents disagreed with regard to the issue of consent for the Christmas Project. As stated above the Respondent made a decision to allow the Complainant’s daughter to participate in 2023 and wrote to the Complainant setting out its reasons for doing so.

  VII.          The “gathering permissions” issue raised by the Complainant was that something whereby consent was requested but was simply a message informing parents where they could find the permission slips on the Aladdin App.

·        The final issue raised by the Complainant concerns a parent teacher meeting that took place on 5 December 2022. It is accepted that the Acting Principal attended the meeting. However, it is denied that this amounted to less favourable treatment than that afforded to the Complainant’s comparator. It is also denied that this is discrimination under any of the alleged grounds. The Acting Principal attends certain parent teacher meetings where it is felt that she may be in a position to deal with issues that the class teacher may not be able to deal with. In this case, given the correspondence from the Complainant, it was felt that it would be appropriate for the Acting Principal to attend the meeting in case any issues arose that required her input. It is not uncommon for a Principal to attend parent teacher meetings in this way. On the day in question the Acting Principal had attended another meeting with the same teacher and the mother of a different pupil in the same class.

The Law.

·        Section 38 A of the Equal Status Act provides that

·        “38A.- 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.

·        In A Worker v Southern Health Board (2010) 21 E.L.R. 72 the Labour Court held as follows in relation to the application of this provision:

“The test for applying that provision is well settled in a line of decisions of this Court starting with the determination in Mitchell v Southern Health Board (2001) E.L.R.201. That test requires the complainant to prove the primary facts upon which he or she relies in seeking to raise an inference of discrimination. It is only if this initial burden is discharged that the burden of proving that there was no infringement of the principle of equal treatment passes to the respondent. If the complainant does not discharge the initial probative burden which she bears, her case cannot succeed.”

·        It is clear from the facts of this case that the Complainant has not been treated less favourably than his comparator, the mother of his daughter. Both parents have been treated in exactly the same way.

·        Both parents were given the same opportunity to consent to the various activities in the school. With regard to the orienteering trip the mother consented but the Complainant did not express any view.

·        The only other issue where consent differed was in relation to the Christmas Card project and the Respondent set out the reasons why, on the particular occasion, it allowed the Complainant’s daughter to participate.

·        With regard to the Acting Principal attending the parent teacher meeting there is no evidence that this is less favourable treatment than was afforded to his comparator. It is respectfully submitted that the presence of the Acting Principal would put the Complainant in a better position than his comparator as the Acting Principal would have been in a position to deal with certain matters that the class teacher would not.

·        In the circumstances the Respondent submits that the Complainant has failed to prove the primary facts relied upon and has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Accordingly, the Respondent submits that the Complainant’s proceedings should be dismissed on all counts.

The Complainant alleges that he has been discriminated against by the Respondent on the grounds of Gender, Civil Status, Family Status and Religion from 6 March 2015 to 5 December 2022. The Complainant also alleges that he has been victimised by the Respondent due to him having previously applied for a determination for redress provided in the Equal Status Acts, attended as a witness before an Adjudication Officer of the WRC in connection with an enquiry for proceedings under the Acts and gave evidence in other proceedings under the Acts. In this regard it is confirmed that the Complainant previously issued two sets of proceedings against the Respondent alleging discrimination on the grounds of Gender, Civil Status and Family Status. The first set of proceedings issued on 30 January 2020 and were heard before an Adjudication Officer on 16 April 2021. Those proceedings were dismissed. The second set of proceedings issued on 9 November 2021 and were heard before an Adjudication Officer on 12 October 2022. The Complainant failed to attend the hearing without notice to the Respondent and those proceedings were also dismissed.

This being the case it is not accepted that the instant complaint is a continuum of ADJ – 00024762.

In the instant complaint the Complainant states that this case turns on the Decision in ADJ – 00013996. This decision in its entirety has been included in his submission and he draws particular attention to the following paragraphs:

“It is clear that the Respondent was fully aware prior to the completion of the enrolment process of the Complainant’s daughter in the school that there was a dispute between her two legal guardians in relation to this matter. A school has no jurisdiction to decide matters pertaining to guardianship and in circumstances where such parents /legal guardians cannot agree to matters pertaining to their children’s welfare, including decisions relating to education, then such matters must be decided upon by a court”.

In the instant case, the Complainant, being a joint legal guardian, was fully entitled to object to the enrolment of his daughter in the Respondent’s school. In the circumstances, I take the view that it was incumbent on the Respondent to bring this objection to the attention of the mother of the Complainant’s daughter and to defer any decision on the enrolment application until this issue has been decided by the courts, being the relevant authority to decide such matters. I am satisfied that the Respondent failed to act in such a manner but instead proceeded to enrol the Complainant’s daughter in the school even though it was fully aware of the dispute between her parents (and legal guardians) in relation to this matter. I find that the Respondent in doing so, subjected the Complainant to discrimination on the grounds of gender in relation to his daughter’s enrolment in the school. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent has failed to rebut the inference of discrimination on the grounds of gender in relation to the enrolment of the Complainant’s daughter in the school in the circumstances of the present case”.

The Complainant has made no mention that this decision issued by the Workplace Relations Commission on 10th September 2019 was successfully appealed to the Circuit Court where Judge John O’Connor issued his judgement on 25th April 2022. From my reading of this judgement, I feel it is appropriate to highlight the following from said judgement:

Summary of the Applicable Law:

27.  The starting point is to consider the nature of the complaint under the Equal Status Act. There must be a connection between the alleged discrimination and the grounds of the action.

28.  In assessing the complaint, it is necessary to ascertain what evidence exists to establish that the treatment received by a complainant is less favourable than the treatment someone of a different gender would have received in similar circumstances.  

29.  It is for the party who alleges gender discrimination to make out a prima facie case of prohibited conduct, which in this case is an allegation of gender discrimination.  

30.  If a prima facie case of prohibited conduct is made out, it is then for the other party to rebut the presumption of gender discrimination.

31.  In considering any complaint which affects children’s rights, the best interests of the child is a primary consideration but not the only consideration. Essentially this means, the child’s interests must be considered first and other competing interests such as the rights of parents must be considered after that.  

32.  A child’s right to education is a very basic and important human right. All children irrespective of gender, race, age or ethnicity, have a right to education designed to achieve their greatest possible potential as children and provide the opportunity to allow them to emerge out of childhood and into adulthood with a full, active life. In doing so, education promotes equality including gender equality and human rights.  

33.  All parents or guardians have a common obligation to promote the education and training of their children and this involves a recognition that parents and guardians are the primary caregivers for children. This recognises that parents and guardians have common responsibilities for the upbringing and the education of children.

34.  Family disputes such as issues concerning gender rights of parents should not be used by a parent to usurp the fundamental rights of a child. The Commission should not be used by a parent or a guardian in upholding their gender rights as a substitute for a court in dealing with what are essentially family law disputes regarding the education of a child. While disputes between parents as to education are in the first instance a matter for the parties to resolve, in the absence of same it is ultimately a matter for the courts. It is a matter for the aggrieved party to initiate the appropriate court action and not the school.

35.  Equality legislation needs to be interpreted first as equality legislation. However, it is not a stand-alone legislation which usurps other substantial rights particularly when those rights concern children. It must therefore be interpreted and balanced in conjunction with all relevant legislation and constitutional rights. For example, it is important to be cognisant of the Education Acts and the duty of a school to enrol a child in their school in accordance with and subject to its enrolment policy.  

36.  Schools should not discriminate against children or parents on the grounds of gender. However, schools should also be afforded a practical approach of interpreting that right in their enrolment policy so as to ensure a child is not deprived of their educational rights. This means in the absence of a court order, a school may have to take a practical approach in the interests of a child’s educational rights, provided it does not promote gender discrimination.

Applying the Law to the Facts:

37.  I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent has not demonstrated a prima facie case that he was treated less favourably on account of his gender.

38.  It is clear both from the submissions, as furnished to the court, and the oral evidence of the School Principal, as given in court, the Appellant did not operate a gender discriminatory practice in favour of female parents over male parents in the enrolment policy of the school. It is also quite apparent from the facts that the Appellant was exemplary in its frequent communications with the Respondent in regard to the child’s education. I accept that the Respondent is, in conjunction with the child’s mother, the legal guardian of the child. However, this does not create an automatic right to force a school to refuse admission of a child in the absence of one parent’s consent for a child to attend the school, simply on the grounds of the parent’s gender. As the Respondent has not made out a prima facie case on the facts, it is not necessary to consider other legal principles outlined in the judgment, such as the balancing exercise outlined in paragraph 35 of this judgment.

39.  Accordingly, I therefore allow the Appellant’s appeal.  

I draw attention to a list supplied by the Respondent:

·        After School Clubs: No consent forms were returned by either parent and the Complainant’s daughter did not participate in any of the after-school clubs.

·        The evaluation form was sent to both parents. Both were given the opportunity to complete it and return it to the school. The Complainant did not avail of this opportunity. Consent was not an issue.

·        A family mass permission slip was facilitated by the school wherein the permission slip for children who wished to have an active part in the family mass on Sundays was sent to both parents via the Aladdin App. Neither parent returned the form and the Complainant’s daughter did not participate in the Sunday mass.

·        Both parents were given the opportunity to consent to the Complainant’s daughter participation in an orienteering trip with her class as part of the PE curriculum. The mother consented via the Aladdin App. The Complainant did not contact the school in this regard although he could have indicated his lack of consent through the App.

·        Both parents disagreed with regard to the issue of consent for the Christmas Project. As stated above the Respondent made a decision to allow the Complainant’s daughter to participate in 2023 and wrote to the Complainant setting out its reasons for doing so.

·        The “gathering permissions” issue raised by the Complainant was that something whereby consent was requested but was simply a message informing parents where they could find the permission slips on the Aladdin App.

The final issue raised by the Complainant concerns a parent teacher meeting that took place on 5 December 2022. It is accepted that the Acting Principal attended the meeting. However, it is denied that this amounted to less favourable treatment than that afforded to the Complainant’s comparator. It is also denied that this is discrimination under any of the alleged grounds. The Acting Principal attends certain parent teacher meetings where it is felt that she may be in a position to deal with issues that the class teacher may not be able to deal with. In this case, given the correspondence from the Complainant, it was felt that it would be appropriate for the Acting Principal to attend the meeting in case any issues arose that required her input. It is not uncommon for a Principal to attend parent teacher meetings in this way. On the day in question the Acting Principal had attended another meeting with the same teacher and the mother of a different pupil in the same class.

In relation to any other complaints received from the Complainant I believe the Respondent school have not discriminated in any way towards the Complainant and have at all times considered the best interests of the child.

No prima facie case of discrimination has been established and for this reason I find the complaint not to be well founded.

No prima facie case of discrimination has been established and for this reason I find the complaint not to be well founded.

Equal Status Act 2000.