Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Roberto  Da Silva

Google Ireland Limited

Representatives

Self

Katherine McVeigh, B.L., instructed by Lewis Silkin Ireland

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-00070726-001

10/04/2025

The Complainant submitted an on-line application for a software development apprenticeship with the Respondent on 10/02/2025.  This application consisted of a cover letter and CV.  This application was sent to a recruitment company which was engaged by the Respondent to screen the 1634 applications.  The Complainant was advised by the recruitment company on 26/03/2025 that his application was unsuccessful.  The Complainant submitted his complaint of discrimination on the ground of disability and an alleged failure to provide reasonable accommodation to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 10/04/2025.

The Complainant gave evidence on oath.  He outlined that he submitted an on-line application for an apprenticeship with the Respondent on 10/02/2025.  The Complainant stated that there was a question about disability on the application form and he ticked the box stating “Yes”. The Complainant stated that he ticked this box as he has a confirmed diagnosis of Autism.  The Complainant stated that after submitting his application he got an acknowledgement but no one contacted him in relation to his disability.  He got an email on 26/03/2025 stating that his application had been rejected.  The Complainant stated that following this he sent an email to the Respondent requesting an appeal of this decision but all he got back was silence.  There was no engagement of communication with him.  It is the Complainant’s position that the Respondent failed to communicate with him and he approached them in good faith.  As a result of this failure, he submitted his complaint to the WRC on 10/04/2025 and included all his supporting documentation.

The Complainant stated that there was still no communication from the Respondent after a 21-day period.  (In a post hearing clarification email the Complainant noted that he obtained the reference to this 21-day period in a letter sent to him by the WRC with a link to the following document:  WRC PROCEDURES IN THE ADJUDICATION AND INVESTIGATION OF ALL EMPLOYMENT AND EQUALITY COMPLAINTS AND DISPUTES).  In response to a question from the Adjudication Officer, the Complainant stated that he linked this lack of communication or response to his disability as he had confirmed in his initial application that he had a disability.  It is the Complainant’s position that once he had indicated that he had a disability there was an onus of responsibility on the Respondent to engage with him to see how he could be accommodated during the recruitment process.  They should have acknowledged that he had a disability and asked if they could assist him in any way.

The Complainant believes that the Respondent also has an obligation under the provisions of the Employment Equality Act to have a pro-active approach to applicants with a disability and engage with such applicants to see how they could support him.  The Complainant emphasised that he engaged with them in good faith but he got no response.  The Complainant believes that the Respondent has breached the Employment Equality Act, Section 16, 3(b) by their failure to take a pro-active approach to take “all that is reasonable” to facilitate persons with disabilities, including during a recruitment process.

The Complainant believes that the Respondent continually excluded him by not engaging with him in relation to his follow up query.  He submits that this is indicative of their non-compliance with their statutory duties at the recruitment stage. 

The Complainant submits that he did not seek reasonable accommodation when he submitted his initial application because the structure and format of the recruitment process was not specified at that stage and he did not know what supports might be required until this was made known to him.  The Complainant submits that at no stage was he directed to any link or received any guidance on how to request supports and that is why he expected to be contacted in order to clarify what he might need.

Cross examination – the Complainant:

The Complainant was cross examined by Ms McVeigh, B.L. on behalf of the Respondent.  The Complainant was asked if he submitted any medical evidence of his disability to the Respondent.  He confirmed that he did not.  The Complainant confirmed that he gave evidence that he disclosed his disability on the application form.  It was put to the Complainant that there was no such box to be ticked on the application form and he disagreed.  It was put to the Complainant that there is a second form called “Voluntary Self Identification” form which is part of the Respondent’s recruitment process.  The Complainant stated that he saw the box in relation to disability on the application form.  The Complainant agreed that he created a Google account as part of his application.  He denied that he completed a Voluntary Self Identification form.

It was put to the Complainant that his case was that the recruitment company knew about his disability and should therefore have done something for him.  He agreed that was his complaint.  It was put to the Complainant that the evidence from the recruitment company will be that they did not know about his disability.  The Complainant submitted that he stated that he had a disability as part of his application.

The Complainant was asked about his view that he should have reasonable accommodation and it was put to him that his diagnosis of Autism does not prevent him from using Google.  The Complainant stated that his Autism is not a limitation.  It was put to the Complainant that his evidence was that there was no information available for him and that the Respondent should have contacted him and asked him what he required.  He confirmed that was his position.  It was put to the Complainant that the Respondent will dispute his evidence and will confirm that there is at least two pages on how to access reasonable accommodation.  The Complainant stated that he did not see that.  A copy of the web page with the title “Google Career Site Accommodations for Applicants” was opened.  This showed that the is a section which asks, “Do you need assistance submitting an application through our career site due to a disability?” and it also clarified that any information submitted on that form with only be viewed by members of the Candidate Accommodations team “and will not be used or referenced in any hiring decisions”.   The Complainant stated that he did not see this when he was making his application.  When he ticked the box confirming that he had a disability he expected the Respondent to contact him.

It was also put to the Complainant that the Respondent’s evidence will be that not only is this information available on the career site but every job application has a link to this.  The Complainant confirmed that he did not see this.  It was put to the Complainant that the Respondent’s job advertisements contain an equal opportunities statement which goes well beyond the requirements of the Employment Equality Act.  The Complainant stated that what was written does go beyond the requirement.  It was also put to the Complainant that the application has a line which stated “If you have a need that requires accommodation, please let us know by completing the “Accommodations for Applicants Form” which is also hyperlinked.   The Complainant stated that he did not see this line or the hyperlink.  The Complainant was asked if it was his position that his Autism prevented him from accessing this information and he confirmed that it did not.

The Complainant agreed that it was not disputed that he did not request reasonable accommodation. It was put to the Complainant that in that case there could be no breach of Section 16 of the Act.  The Complainant stated that he had requested reasonable accommodation and he agreed that this was not until 20/03/2025 and not in his application of 10/02/2025.

The email of 26/03/2025 from Ms Anjali Gupta was opened at the hearing.  The Complainant agreed that this was the email confirming that his application was not going to progress.  He also confirmed that here was no reference to his disability or reasonable accommodation in that email.  The Complainant was asked what was the reasonable accommodation that he thought should be available at the application screening stage.  He stated that he felt that he might need more time and the only contact he had was through his application.  It was put to the Complainant that in his email dated 26/03/2025 to Ms Gupta he does not ask for reasonable accommodation.  The Complainant agreed that he did not ask but he did ask for his application to be reconsidered.

It was put to the Complainant that the Respondent does have a clear pathway in relation to requests for reasonable accommodation but he did not ask for it.  The Complainant stated that it was not there and he did not see that information.  The Complainant was asked to clarify if he was saying that the Respondent should have reconsidered his application due to the fact that he had Autism.  He confirmed that was his position.  The Complainant agreed that his earlier evidence was that he was not inhibited from applying due to his Autism. 

It was put to the Complainant that regardless of what reasonable accommodation might be put in place it would not have changed the fact that he was overqualified for the apprenticeship role.  The Complainant stated, “I am still learning”.

The Complainant was asked if he had identified a comparator as part of his submission.  He stated that he does not need to have a comparator.

The Complainant was referred to his email to the Respondent on 26/03/2024 which he referred to in his evidence.  It was put to the Complainant that the copy opened at the hearing shows that this was not received by the Respondent and was labelled “Deleted, Spam, Unread” and was directed to a junk folder on their system.  It was also put to the Complainant that the Respondent only became aware of this email when he made a reference to it in his WRC submission and it took a very detailed search of their email system to retrieve it.  The Complainant stated that his email was sent to a valid Google email account and it was out of his control after that.  It was a matter for the Respondent to check their email.  He accepted that the Respondent said it was found in a junk email folder.

It was put to the Complainant that after he sent the email of 26/03/24 and having received no response, he did not contact the Respondent again or use any contact form but instead referred his complaint to the WRC.  The Complainant agreed that he did not contact the Respondent again.

It was put to the Complainant that even if the Respondent had received his email of 26/03/2024 it would not have made any difference and he failed to identify any measures or accommodations that he would require.  The Complainant stated that he expected someone to contact him about that.

It was put to the Complainant that he was able to apply and complete the process.  He agreed but felt that he should have some supports as he did not see any of the hyperlinks.

It was put to the Complainant that his evidence shows that:

·         He has failed to make a connection between his disability and the rejection of his complaint and

·         He has failed to make a connection between the lack of reasonable accommodation and the rejection of his complaint.

The Complainant stated that he disclosed his disability when he applied.

It was put to the Complainant that the Respondent’s evidence will be that his application was rejected because he was overqualified for an entry level position as an apprentice.  The Complainant stated that he never worked in any of those areas and he wanted to become involved.  It was put to the Complainant that in his application letter he outlined his experience to “include IT Project Management, Data Collection and Cleaning, Data Analysis, Data Visualization, Reporting Predictive Analysis, and customer support.”  The Complainant stated that he never held a job in those areas but had some experience in those fields.

It was put to the Complainant that it was clear on the day that the apprenticeship role was not one for him.  His CV listed a BA degree at level 7, a BA at level 8 a Masters at level 9 as well as two post graduate diplomas.  The Complainant stated that it was not clear to him at the application stage that his qualifications would be an issue.

The Complainant was asked what his understanding of an apprenticeship was and he stated that it was an opportunity to learn new skills.  Being over-qualified is good.  It was put to the Complainant that it was clear that this role was not one for him.  He stated that he disagreed.

Closing Submission – the Complainant:

In a closing submission the Complainant stated that he disclosed his disability during the initial application process.  He done this by ticking the box which asked him the question.  He done this in good faith but the Respondent failed to engage.  It was clear that he was an applicant with a disability.

It is the Complainant’s submission that the Respondent did not dispose of the presumption of discrimination.  It cannot be the fault of the candidate that the information was not given to him.  The Employment Equality Act requires an employer to be pro-active and the Respondent did not do so.  The Complainant outlined that he had informed the Respondent of his disability and all he had from this is an email to acknowledge his application and a email to reject his application.

The Complainant stated that he did not access the form which the Respondent said was available because he did not have it.  He should have been given the form when he needed it.  At all times he was ignored by the Respondent and he submits that the law is not passive – it requires a pro-active approach by an employer.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent should have informed a candidate about the form that they described.  He did not see any link.  In addition to this the Respondent failed to respond to his question and since his application was rejected, he was ignored.

The Complainant submits that the burden of proof shifts to the Respondent to explain why no action took place.  He was not asked anything about his disability and the Respondent did not seek to support him in any way.

Evidence - Ms Anjali Gupta:

Ms Anjali Gupta gave evidence on affirmation on behalf of the Respondent.  She confirmed that she is an employee of Ranstad India Private Ltd.  The Respondent was a client of that company and they were engaged to carry out the recruitment for the apprenticeship role.  Ms Gupta confirmed that she had no role in relation to the Respondent providing reasonable accommodation to any candidate.  Mr Gupta confirmed that she was not aware that the Complainant had a disability.  This information was not provided or shared with her.

Ms Gupta outlined that she was responsible for shortlisting the applicants for the apprenticeship role with the Respondent.  She also confirmed that she screened the Complainant’s application.  The screening process involved having access to a candidate’s CV and she had a template document which was used to screen all the applications.  Ms Gupta confirmed that the Complainant was clearly over-qualified for the role and he was informed of this by email on 26/03/2025.  Ms Gupta explained that this email was sent to all candidates who were rejected and it was not tailored to each individual.  This was the practice and due to the number of applications this would not be feasible. 

Ms Gupta confirmed that she did not receive the email sent to her by the Complainant on 26/03/2025.  Ms Gupta stated that she has no explanation as to why this email did not come through to her.

Cross examination – Ms Anjali Gupta:

Ms Gupta was cross examined by the Complainant.  She was asked to confirm if the Respondent processed all the job applications including those with a disability.  Ms Gupta stated that she had absolutely no access to any information about any candidate who disclosed a disability.  Ms Gupta was asked why the email which rejected his application did not state the reason for doing so.  Ms Gupta explained that they do not compose individual email replies to each candidate.

Ms Gupta was asked why the Respondent did not clarify until July 2025 that the reason for the rejection of his application was the fact that he was deemed over-qualified. Ms Gupta explained that she was only responsible for sending the emails in March 2025 and she had no further dealings with any candidate whose application was rejected.

Ms Gupta was asked how she did not know that she did not receive the Complainant’s email of 26/03/2025.  She stated that it was a fact that she did not receive it and it was only brought to her attention when it was discovered as part of the WRC complaint follow up.

Re-direction – Ms Anjali Gupta:

Ms Gupta was asked how a candidate would be able to access her email address.  She confirmed that she does not give her email address to any candidate.

Evidence – Mr Rocco Sek:

Mr Rocco Sek gave evidence on affirmation on behalf of the Respondent.  He confirmed that he is an employee of the Respondent and his role is Talent Acquisition and Vendor Management Specialist.  He explained that the recruitment function is outsourced to an agency and he is the link person between the business and the recruitment vendor.  His main role is to monitor the progress of various recruitment campaigns and to oversee the process.  Mr Sek confirmed that he has no role in the actual recruitment process itself.  Mr Sek confirmed that he oversaw the apprenticeship recruitment campaign.

Mr Sek stated that if a candidate applies to the Respondent there is a form which allows any request for reasonable accommodation to be completed.  This is available to every candidate for every competition that the Respondent initiates.  There is also a link to this form in the FAQ section of the application.

Mr Sek confirmed that the copy of the web page opened at the hearing is the page from the Respondent’s site which has a title of “Google Career Site Accommodations for Applicants”.  This asks candidates who may need assistance with their application to complete the form and the Respondent will then reach out to see what assistance may be provided.  Mr Sek explained that the Respondent has a specialist team who deal with such accommodations and they reach out to candidates to check what accommodations can be put in place.

Mr Sek explained that reasonable accommodation at the screening stage of the recruitment process would depend on the particular situation.  The Respondent will do anything possible to help the candidate to complete and submit their application.  It is their practice to provide any possible assistance.

Mr Sek explained that at the interview stage of the process there are various measures that can be put in place such as longer interviews, provide questions in advance, use translation software or any other specific requirement.  Mr Sek confirmed that the Complainant did not apply for any reasonable accommodations.  Mr Sek also confirmed that there was no medical evidence provided by the Complainant in relation to his diagnosis of Autism.  Mr Sek also confirmed that he did not provide any of these details when he submitted his application.

Mr Sek was asked to outline how the “Voluntary Self Identification” form operated.  He explained that this is part of the application process.  A candidate creates a profile and uploads their CV.  This is a voluntary form which can be used to provide various information.  It is not part of the hiring process and is used to improve their hiring process but has no role in the recruitment or interview process. The form clearly states “The responses you provide have no impact on hiring decisions …”  In that context the information contained on this form is not disclosed to the recruitment personnel.

Mr Sek was asked if the Complainant had requested reasonable accommodation would it have helped him.  Mr Sek stated that the Complainant submitted his on-line application in the same way as any of the other candidates who applied.  Mr Sek confirmed that his application was rejected at shortlisting stage and this rejection was not because he had a disability.

Mr Sek was asked to outline the purpose of these apprenticeships with the Respondent.  Mr Sek explained that since 2019 the Respondent put a programme in place for candidates with entry level experience and this is an opportunity to learn on the job.  A candidate for this role would have minimal qualifications.  The Respondent hires six such candidates each year and they complete a two-year programme.  In the competition which the Complainant applied there were a total of 1634 applications for these six places which meant that this was a very competitive process.

Mr Sek gave evidence that the recruitment company, Ranstad, were responsible for reviewing all the applicant’s CV’s and cover letter and then completing an assessment in relation to the minimum qualifications for the role.  The company was responsible for passing applications to the recruitment stage or rejecting the applications.  The screening team has no contact with the candidates and relies on the CV and cover letter submitted.

Mr Sek confirmed that he believed that the decision by Ms Gupta not to shortlist the Complainant was a correct decision.  He was clearly over-qualified.  The apprenticeship would be seen as a Level 1 where a candidate would have no experience or university degree.  The Complainant’s degrees would have been more suitable for a Level 3 or Level 4 position.

Mr Sek confirmed that he had no knowledge of the Complainant’s email of 26/03/2025.  The recruiter would not be expected to engage with candidates.  Mr Sek confirmed that the email was found on a spam folder on one of the Respondent’s servers.

Cross examination Mr Rocco Sek:

Mr Sek was cross examined by the Complainant.  He was asked how the Respondent monitors equality compliance.  Mr Sek stated that they outsource the recruitment to an agency who then screen all the applicants.  The Respondent does not monitor the applications and the Respondent does not expect the screening team to get in direct contact with candidates.

Mr Sek was asked what system the Respondent has in place to monitor its spam folders.  Mr Sek stated that he would be unable to answer that question as he does not know what if any system is in place.

Closing submission:

Ms Katherine McVeigh, B.L, made a closing submission on behalf of the Respondent.  Ms McVeigh stated that the Respondent would also rely on their written submissions.  In relation to this complaint the burden of proof rests with the Complainant.  Based on the evidence adduced it is clear that he:

·         Failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination

·         Failed to have a comparator

·         Failed to establish a breach of Section 16 of the Act

·         Failed to provide any evidence that he was treated any different to any other candidate who applied for the same post

·         Failed to establish facts of “significant significance” in order to establish a prima facie case

It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the Complainant has utterly failed in his attempt to establish that he was discriminated against by the Respondent.  The complaint is frivolous.

Section 28(1) (f0 of the Act provides:

“28.- (1) For the purposes of this Part, “C” and “D” represent 2 persons who differ as follows:

(f)  in relation to the disability ground, C is a person with a disability and D is not or vise versa, or C and D are persons with different disabilities.”

It is critical that a Complainant establishes a comparator and in this case the Complainant has failed to do so and submitted that he does not have to do so.  It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the Complainant’s allegation is based on his “belief” and not of “sufficient significance”.  This belief is without foundation.  The facts of this case stand on all fours and a recent WRC determination, Chantelle Keenan v Benzar Vizion Limited(ADJ-00054590), where it was held that there was a “flaw” in the claim where the Complainant did not identify a comparator.  In that claim, the Complainant, similar to this Complainant, did not produce any evidence of weight from which it could be concluded that their protected ground was related to less favourable treatment.

The Complainant has no case under Section 16 of the Act in relation to his claim that he was denied access to employment due to Autism or that the Respondent failed to provide reasonable accommodation.  The Complainant has failed to give examples of any appropriate measures that he required.  He also failed to provide any medical evidence to the Respondent.  He has confirmed that he was confident and capable of submitting the application and he further confirmed that he did not request reasonable accommodation.  The evidence is also clear that the Complainant did not disclose his disability until 26/03/2025.  Ms Gupta gave clear evidence that she did not ask any candidate about reasonable accommodation.  There can be no breach of Section 16 of the Act when the Complainant did not submit any request for reasonable accommodation.  The fact is that the Complainant could not outline how the Respondent could accommodate hi.

The Respondent’s website had many links to assist people apply for posts.  The Complainant’s case is that he was refused an apprenticeship because of his disability.  The fact is that the person conducting the screening, Ms Gupta had no awareness of his disability. 

The Complainant asked that his application be reconsidered.  Such a request has no basis in law and in any event, this could have no bearing on his case.  The Complainant’s case is that the Respondent did not provide any information or support but he confirmed in evidence that he did not see it and he further confirmed that he understood what hyperlinks are and how they work.  The fact that his email of 26/03/2025 was not received is moot.  A request to be reconsidered is not an actual request for reasonable accommodation.

In summary the Complainant has failed to link his disability with the rejection of his application.  He failed to request reasonable accommodation.  The reason for his rejection, that he was over- qualified, was not disputed.  The apprenticeship scheme operated by the Respondent is not for someone with the Complainant’s qualifications.

The Respondent rejects the Complainant’s complaint in its entirety and must be dismissed.

CA-00070726:001

The Complainant submitted a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 10/04/2024 that he was discriminated against by the Respondent on the basis of his disability and the alleged failure of the Respondent to reasonably accommodate him during his on-line application for a software development apprenticeship with the Respondent. The Respondent submits that the complaint is not well founded as no discrimination took place and the Complainant did not provide sufficient evidence to ground a complaint under the Act.

Section 6 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, states:

“6.— (1) For the purposes of this Act and without prejudice to its provisions relating to discrimination occurring in particular circumstances discrimination shall be taken to occur where—

(a) 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 specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as the ‘discriminatory grounds’) which—

(i) exists,

(ii) existed but no longer exists,

(iii) may exist in the future, or

(iv) is imputed to the person concerned,

(b) a person who is associated with another person—

(i) is treated, by virtue of that association, less favourably than a person who is not so associated is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, and

(ii) similar treatment of that other person on any of the discriminatory grounds would, by virtue of paragraph (a), constitute discrimination.]

(2) As between any 2 persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are—

(a) that one is a woman and the other is a man (in this Act referred to as “the gender ground”),

(b) that they are of different civil status (in this Act referred to as “the civil status ground”),

(c) that one has family status and the other does not (in this Act referred to as “the family status ground”),

(d) that they are of different sexual orientation (in this Act referred to as “the sexual orientation ground”),

(e) that one has a different religious belief from the other, or that one has a religious belief and the other has not (in this Act referred to as “the religion ground”),

(f) that they are of different ages, but subject to subsection (3) (in this Act referred to as “the age ground”),

(g) that one is a person with a disability and the other either is not or is a person with a different disability (in this Act referred to as “the disability ground”),

(h) that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins (in this Act referred to as “the ground of race”),

(i) that one is a member of the Traveller community and the other is not (in this Act referred to as “the Traveller community ground”)”.

This complaint is made pursuant to the Employment Equality Acts on the basis that the Complainant was discriminated by the Respondent because of his disability and the failure of the Respondent to reasonably accommodate him. 

The Burden of Proof

The Equality Act 2004 inserts a new section, 85A, into the Employment Equality Acts 1998 – 2015.

“85A – (1) 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.”

The effect of S.85A above is to place the burden of proof in the first instance on a Complainant, to establish facts which, on an initial examination, lead to a presumption that discrimination has occurred.  Referred to as “prima facie” evidence, in the context of this adjudication hearing, the responsibility was on the Complainant to show that, based on the primary facts, he has been discriminated against because of his disability and the failure to provide reasonable accommodation as outlined in the Act.

The Complainant provided the hearing with a substantial submission which provided a narrative of events since his application for employment commenced on 10/02/2025 up to the date of the hearing.  As his complaint was submitted to the WRC on 10/04/2025 the cognisable period is from 11/10/2024 to 10/04/2025.

The explanation provided by the Labour Court in its decision on Arturs Valpeters v Melbury Developments [2010] 21, ELR 64, which addresses the onerous nature of the burden of proof is also helpful:

“This requires that the Complainant must first establish facts from which discrimination may be inferred.  What those facts are will vary from case to case and there is no closed category of facts which can be relied upon.  All that is required is that they be of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination.  However, they must be established as facts on credible evidence.  Mere speculations or assertions, unsupported by evidence, cannot be elevated to a factual basis upon which an inference of discrimination can be drawn.  Section 85A places the burden of proof fairly and squarely on the Complainant and the language of this provision admits of no exceptions to that evidential rule.”

In deciding whether the Complainant has discharged the burden of proof as set out in section 85A of the Act above, I must consider the totality of his evidence given at the hearing. In the first instance, I note that while he attempted link the rejection of his application for an apprenticeship to his disability as specified in the Act, he failed to establish facts from which it may be presumed that the principle of equal treatment has not been applied to him. 

Bolger, Bruton, Kimber; Employment Equality Law 2nd Ed. 2022 at para 2-207 commenting on Southern Health Board v Mitchell (2001) E.L.R. 201 noted:

“This test requires that facts relied upon by a Complainant must be proved by them to the satisfaction of the Tribunal or Court at the level of balance of probabilities and if proven, must be of sufficient significance as to raise an inference of discrimination. In the case before it, the Labour Court found, on the facts of the case, that the Complainant could not demonstrate superior qualifications and experience than the successful appointee and that she therefore failed to discharge the burden of proof that rested on her”.

In Cork City Council v McCarthy (2008) EDA0821 the Labour Court also stated:

“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 be appropriately drawn to explain a particular fact or a set of facts which are proved in evidence”.

Several key issues emerge from the Complainant’s own evidence, which are outlined below:

1.       Access to Respondent’s Application Portal:

The Complainant confirmed that he accessed the on-line  application for a software development apprenticeship through the Respondent’s official web application portal.  He did not outline any difficulties or issues in doing so.

2.       Awareness of Disability Support Framework:

The Complainant acknowledged that he did not see and therefore did not access the Respondent’s comprehensive framework designed to assist applicants with disabilities.

3.       Lack of Evidence Linking Disability to Rejection:

The Complainant failed to provide any evidence suggesting that his application rejection was linked to his disability. On the contrary, the shortlisting process clearly indicates that his disability was not known at the time of assessment and therefore had no influence on the decision.

4.       Failure to Request Reasonable Accommodation:

The Complainant does not dispute that he did not request any form of reasonable accommodation. Furthermore, he has not provided any explanation as to how such accommodation might have altered the outcome of the shortlisting process.

5.       Ineligibility Based on Qualifications:

The Complainant did not acknowledge that his existing qualifications placed him outside the target group for the apprenticeship scheme, which is intended for individuals without such credentials.

6.       Misunderstanding Regarding Need for a Comparator:

The Complainant maintains a flawed position in asserting that a comparator was not required in his case, contrary to established legal principles in discrimination claims.

Having considered the evidence, I find that the Complainant has failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of disability or any alleged failure to provide reasonable accommodation. It follows that the Respondent did not engage in discriminatory conduct.

Having considered the submissions of both parties and the evidence presented at the hearing, I find that the Complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination on the grounds of disability or failure to provide reasonable accommodation, as prohibited under the Employment Equality Acts, 1998–2015.

Accordingly, I find that the Complainant has not discharged the burden of proof necessary to show that the Respondent discriminated against him on the grounds of disability or failed to provide reasonable accommodation. Therefore, I have decided that the Respondent did not discriminate against or to provide reasonable accommodation for the Complainant.

Discrimination: disability and to provide reasonable accommodation.