Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Former Student

Secondary School

Representatives

Self-Represented

Mr Kevin Roche BL instructed by Ms Aine Haberlin of Mason Hayes & Curran LLP

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00064427-001

24/06/2024

This matter came before the WRC dated 24/06/2024 as a complaint submitted under section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000. 

The aforesaid complaint was referred to me for investigation.  A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place on 26/09/2024.    

The specific complaint is one of discrimination against by a person, by reason of race and by reason of religion and by reason of family status.  The Complainant claims the Respondent victimised and harassed her. 

The Respondent refutes these claims in their entirety. 

Given the volume of complaints referred in parallel; the number of adjudication files generated; and the procedural issues arising from same together with the preliminary matter of the correct name of the Respondent, a case management was convened in relation to these matters on 26/09/2024 in advance of hearing the substantive matter.    

Following on from the case management on 26/09/2024 such was the level and intensity of the Complainant’s parents’ communications with the WRC by email drops and telephone calls and the allegations and demands contained therein I found it necessary to address the parties on these matters at the outset of hearing the substantive matter on the first day of hearing on 16/01/2025.    

I quoted the following extract from the High Court judgment of Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger in the case of Ammi Burke v. An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission (Respondents) and Arthur Cox LLP (Notice Party) [2023] IEHC 360 at para 30 as follows:

Rights can be exercised in a way that becomes an abuse of process. In Crowley v. Ireland [1980] 1 I.R. 102 O’Higgins C.J. said at 125:

“Rights guaranteed by the Constitution must be exercised having regard to the rights of others. It is on this basis that such rights are given by the Constitution. Once it is sought to exercise such rights without regard to the rights of others and without regard to the harm done to others then what is taking place is an abuse and not the exercise of a right given by the Constitution. The abuse of such rights ranks equally with the infringement of the rights of others and should be condemned by thecourts in protection of the Constitution.”

The Complainant’s parents confirmed they understood what this passage means. 

As allegations of bias had been made by the Complainant’s parents in communications to the WRC, I outlined the meaning of bias and I set out the established test for bias in this jurisdiction as held by the Supreme Court in O'Driscoll (a minor) v Hurley [2016] IESC 32 where Dunne J held as follows:

“…whether a reasonable person, in all the circumstances of the case, would have a reasonable apprehension that there would not be a fair trial from an impartial judge. As it is an objective test, it does not invoke the apprehension of a judge, or any party; it invokes the reasonable apprehension of a reasonable person, who is in possession of all the relevant facts.”  [emphasis added].

I then revisited all the relevant facts since the case management of this case that took place on 26 September 2024 and the first allegation arising thereto that the case management was arranged “because the Respondent requested it.”  

It was necessary that I disabuse the Complainant’s parents of this perception by explaining to them that the manner in which they had submitted their complaints, and continued to resubmit them, created an inordinate number of complaints and it was necessary for me to case manage in order to ascertain the number of complaints properly before me due to the significant duplication of complaints.  The Complainants did not use the WRC online complaint form or the manual complaint form but instead used the ES1 forms to submit their complaints and attached thereto numerous documents which in turn created further complaints.     

The parties were reminded that a further reason necessitating case management was related to the fact that the Complainants had named the incorrect respondents.  The parties were reminded that the law of vicarious liability as set out in the Equal Status Acts regarding the correct respondent is applicable in cases such as this. 

The Complainant’s had named individual teachers as respondents.  The appliable law had been set out clearly to them at case management both verbally and in writing by the provision of the relevant extract from the legislation for their convenience and understanding bearing in mind the Complainant and her parents presented as litigants in person.     

This was followed by an explanation of the rationale underpinning the decision to anonymise to which the Complainant’s parents had taken exception and objected and had sought that the WRC assist by ensuring media presence at hearing.    

The Complainant’s parents had requested that the Respondent submission should “not be admitted for use during the adjudications because it is an awful lot of information to study and research.”  The Respondent’s submission was filed with the WRC on 07/01/2025.   

The facts were set out which included the fact that the submission itself contained 18 pages and the appendices thereto contained items with which the Complainants were familiar as they were participants in most of them which were email threads and text message threads and other appendices with which they were familiar including ES1 and ES2 forms. 

I explained that the 15-day guideline for the submission of documents parties intend to rely on is a WRC guideline that is not set out anywhere in statute.  Complaints had been made about the book of authorities provided by the Respondent and I had prepared a one-page document for the Complainants setting out the burden of proof relevant to the within case together with the most frequently used caselaw for their convenience and understanding bearing in mind they presented as litigants in person.     

The Complainant’s parents were reminded that it was they who requested, at case management on 26 September 2024, that all their family cases be heard together. 

They were reminded that it was indicated to them that all would be heard together over 2 days.  It was very specifically indicated to them at case management on 26 September 2024 that it would be at least mid to late January before the cases would be heard despite their subsequent assertion that they had been told “the adjudication would take place quickly after the case management” and their subsequent requests by telephone to the WRC in mid-October for an urgent hearing date. 

The hearing adjourned briefly in order to provide the Complainant and her parents with the opportunity to review this one-page document on the burden of proof.    

The hearing commenced after this break with the Complainant’s parents submitting they wanted it on record that they were participating in the hearing of their complaints under protest which was duly noted and recorded.  

CA-00064427-001

The Complainant relied on the ESI form and several documents comprising a few hundred pages were submitted none of which were referred to during hearing apart from one detailing the role of the Home School Community Liasion.   The Complainant submitted statements from family members in support of her claim.

The Complainant was elected Head Girl by the students and her teachers, the Principal did not want to take a picture with her as he customarily did with the other Irish students who were elected head girl in the previous years, discriminated against her, he was present when the elected head students picture was taken.  I think that this involved me (the Complainant) being treated less favorably than others in the following way:

In the previous years the head boy/girl were Irish nationals, the Principal took pictures with them as per his/school custom.  The Complainant is born of Romanian nationals and is a Jehovah’s Witness, he did not take pictures with her.

Meeting was organized by the Principal, the Year Head to deal with a bullying complaint parents made in behalf of the Complainant.   The bully and the Complainant along with witnesses were present at the meeting and the Year Head and the Guidance Counsellor were designated to manage bullying in school.

At the meeting the bully was encouraged to tell lies that the Complainant did anything to him, was allowed to speak first and tell lies and then he was allowed to speak over the Complainant when it was her turn to speak, he was not stopped to allow her to speak.  The boy was further allowed during the meeting to scoff at her and to ridicule her, thus being allowed to hurt her more than in the first instance, in the presence of two teachers and witness students.

The Complainant was told her parents will be called as she was in distress as they caused her distress during the meeting and she was crying nearly for the whole meeting and the meeting was allowed to go on while the bully was laughing at her when he saw she was crying, and they never did call her parents.

The Year Head acknowledged her distress by saying to her” I can see you are in distress , do you want me to call your parents?” she said yes, but they never did call us.   The Complainant was kept back and told that she has to stay behind to calm as the other students can’t see her in distress.   We were lied to that the meeting was about to make peace and we thought that the boy would be encouraged to honesty, integrity and respect, the Complainant was ready to make peace, on the contrary the meeting was held as a trial where the judges are biased and no witnesses are allowed to speak.

I think that this involved the Complainant being treated less favorably than others in the following way.  The bully was an Irish national and the Complainant is born to Romanian parents, Grounds: race discrimination, treating one race more favorably than other.   Shortly after the meeting, the Year Head called the Complainant to talk and the Complainant told her she doesn’t feel comfortable to talk about the situation again, the Year Head lied to her to get her into the principal office where the Principal was by saying to her that they just want to see how she is and to check on her after the meeting.

When the Complainant went in she was verbally attacked and intimidated by both of them that she should let go and not pursue the bullying matter anymore, she was made to feel as a troublemaker, and if she did not let go they approached her in a threatening manner that there will be consequences, and she was told that she will disrupt the students learning and the harmony of the classroom, when in reality she was being silenced as a minority race and her learning and harmony was disrupted by bullying and discrimination that they allowed and encouraged.

We contacted the Principal as parents of the Complainant to tell him we were not happy with the outcome and the way the meeting was conducted and told him that if the boy was not going to own up and apologize the meeting should have not taken place, he got angry and accused us of bringing allegations against his staff and asked us to apologize to the Year Head who was very offended by our feedback.  He arranged for a meeting with us, the Year Head and him, to give us an ultimatum that either we agree and respect the way he carries on in “HIS” school or we take our children out of the school and when I asked to appeal to the board of management, he said that I will not get that and he won’t arrange that.

The Year Head was beside him and said nothing about his decision to restrict us from appealing to the board of management and said nothing about his decision to kick the children out of the school, she agreed by keeping quiet to his mistreating us (as foreigners) and said nothing about how this will affect the children who were going through junior cert and leaving cert, or just accommodating in the first year of secondary.

They wrote a disgraceful report to Tusla the next day after we met (20th of December), that we abuse our children by always collecting them from school in the car, that we beat up our son more than a month before the report and he wrote in the report that he perceived that my wife has become suddenly mentally insane and was unable to look after the children.  Instead of offering support on the day of the meeting, he mocked her for having a panic attack at the overwhelming fear and uncertainty due to his decision to kick our children out of the school, and he also cancelled the ambulance that we ordered to help my wife cope with the panic attack as her chest was hurting.

This was confirmed by the ambulance service when we called them back.  Also, Tusla never investigated the matter or talked to our children as they knew that we first submitted a child protection concern on the day after he kicked the children out of the school.  And they knew that the children would talk about how he harassed our family and how the Complainant was afraid every time the intercom rang in school that she was going to be called to the office again to be intimidated and given out to.

I think that this involved us being treated less favorably than others (on the ground(s) in the following way:  He discriminated against our family status and victimized us for trying to protect our daughter from discrimination, he threatened us, he used coercion and intimidation, he used his influencing power to affect how other see us, he discriminated on perceived disability grounds after he caused emotional hurt.  My wife wrote to him that we were grieving the loss in death of our spiritual sister (died on the 23rd November 2023), whom we knew for the last 20 years as we participated together in spiritual activities and spent time as a spiritual family and she knew our children from when they were born and she asked him to be gentle with them as they were grieving too as we all missed her terribly.  He did not care about the condition my wife was in, but he caused her more grief by mocking her and harassing her with threats, false reports, false accusations, and kicking the children out of the school.

These were discrimination acts not just prejudice, directed at the whole family, he did not care how his hate affected the children or us.  The Year Head also discriminated against us and the children and did not protect our children from discrimination but saw them as our children (foreigners’ children).  Are my children to understand that they can never have dignity to be respected, protected, viewed as equal, that nationalities will band together against them regardless of laws and standards and discriminate just because we are different in race or beliefs?

19th December 2023 Me and my wife wrote text messages to the School Liaison telling her what happened, and we asked her to look after our children as they were coming back to school on solicitors advise and after we contacted Tusla to report child protection issue cause by the principal kicking the children out of the school.  She never replied back to us and avoided us ever since.

I think that this involved me being treated less favorably than others (on the ground(s) in the following way: Discrimination on family status and race, the School Liaison is the person of contact, supporting parents to aid their children’s wellbeing in school and she discriminated against us as she is very friendly with others, and discriminated against the children by not supporting us to know that they are ok while in school, she is also in contact with Tusla EWS in DEIS schools but never supported the children through their grief in school.   She is my younger daughter’s year head but never asked her how she gets on in the first year but she asks the other pupils.   My daughter realized that and approached me about it, she feels her avoidance.   As are my other children feeling avoided by the Principal, My daughter (other daughter not the Complainant) greets him and he doesn’t answer back to her.

18th December 2023

I wrote an email to the deputy principal on the 18th may 2023 ,which she acknowledged to me verbally , following many phone calls from the Principal where he couldn’t control his anger toward us, although he is very careful when he writes to us, that I was concerned that the meeting he wanted us to attend will not go very well if him and the Year Head have something against us and told her we needed a third party to help us maintain good standards of behavior during the meeting and that we are treated with dignity and we can be helped to come to a peaceful resolution and to understand the situation better with the aid of someone that was not involved in our previous interactions with the principal and would not be biased.

She did not attend the meeting and she told us that she was going around the school instead of coming into the principals office while the meeting was on as the Year Head sent her around the long way, instead of asking her to come straight into the meeting, she told us she didn’t know the reason why the Year Head sent her the long way around.  The Principal also said that the Deputy Principal was not going to attend the meeting as he would not allow it as he makes the rules.  The Principal informed my daughter that she was not going to give the graduation speech as head girl though [redacted] teacher.

When I went to the reception to ask to talk to the Principal when I was collecting my daughter after school, he sent the Deputy Principal instead to tell us that he is “unavailable only to me”, that he wont see me, that he would see any other parents but not me or my wife.  He said this in front of me and my daughter after he shouted at her and rushed her in front of me.

We thought that we have been through the worst when the Principal decided to take my daughter graduation speech as Head Girl of away.   He decided and told [name of teacher redacted] to inform my daughter  of his decision, in the last moment.   My daughter was approached by [name redacted same teacher] at the end of January 2024 to ask her to perform a song at the graduation when she  found out she was playing the piano and singing.   [same teacher name redacted] knew that the Complainant was head girl and that she will give a graduation speech but placed no conditions on her but asked her to perform a song on top of that.   The Complainant agreed in January and went on to compose a song and lyrics especially for the graduation and also prepared her speech along with that , she sent a recording of the song by email to [same teacher name redacted]on the 4th of may and [same teacher name redacted] did not place any conditions on her but replied to her that the song was beautiful , that it gave her goosebumps and told her in person afterward that it brought tears to her eyes.  In the last week of graduation she was the messenger to deliver discrimination that was already decided by the Principal, [same teacher name redacted] knowing that wasn’t fair on the Complainant, who put hard work on both the Speech and the song she composed.

Everytime the Principal has an opportunity to exclude the Complainant he did.  The Year Head  intervened during the last week to ask the Complainant to flip a coin as she was going to do only one thing for the graduation, further discriminating on her after she was asked by [same teacher name redacted] to perform a song at the graduation, and after she earned her right to give the graduation speech as Head Girl and at the last minute when she already put hard work into both and had them both prepared.

The Complainant wrote back to [same teacher name redacted] saying that it wasn’t fair the way she is treated and that it is not fair to ask her to choose as she cannot choose as she was heartbroken. The Complainant’s hard work was not respected or recognized.  She knew that the discrimination was aimed at her, and that the Principal could not let her finish her course in peace.  Child psychology always teaches that if you tell a child you can become the best you can be and give them chances to develop and create opportunities for them to express themselves and to thrive they will do just that but if you put limitations on them they will always feel like they are limited to what they can do or achieve and this will obstruct their development.

The discrimination by limiting my daughter to opportunities and recognition has had a negative effect on her and it hurt her at the most important time in her life when the graduation was supposed to be a moment for the children to celebrate their hard work, to speak up , to sing to be happy, to enjoy their celebration, the graduation was not for long speeches by the Principal and the Year Head the parents came to celebrate with their children and they should only facilitate that happy occasion for the kids to enjoy it not to limit them and taking things away from them, he discriminated against my daughter directly and with intent and premeditated and he took away from her the good memory of her graduation , something he will never be able to give back to her and something she will never have again, but that is what hate and discrimination does, it hurts people. I think that this involved me being treated less favorably than others (on the ground(s) in the following way

Racism, acts of discrimination, the Principal would never do that to an Irish child that worked hard and earned their rights, he would never limit an Irish child that wanted to do more and he would never take their opportunities for development away from them but would proudly support children with his nationality.   He would care how parents of his nationality see him but he doesn’t care how we see him for treating our daughter with discrimination.   He doesn’t care how his discrimination affects us all as a family.

Summary of direct evidence of Complainant on affirmation

The Complainant submits there was a boy bullying her, making faces at her and laughing at her and that is started in fifth year.  The Complainant submits she talked to her parents about it and they told her to ignore it.  The Complainant submits it escalated on 17 November 2023 on a trip to DCU.  The Complainant submits she was walking with her friends and he started walking past and that he barked in her ear and spat at her.  The Complainant submits she told the career guidance councillor her ear was very sore and she told her parents.  The Complainant submits her Mam emailed the Principal and he said he would speak to the boy.

The Complainant submits there was a meeting arranged for 7th December present at which were two teachers one of whom was her Year Head and the boy and his girlfriend.  The Complainant submits the meeting was a disaster and that when one of the teachers asked who would like to go first he said he would and he denied it all.  The Complainant submits he said that she was bullying him and his girlfriend.  The Complainant submits the teachers didn’t step in and he was laughing at everything.  The Complainant submits she started to cry during the meeting and one of the teachers said she could see she (the Complainant) was distressed and the Complainant submits she said she would like her mother to be called and she wasn’t called.  The Complainant submits she got a panic attack and she was kept there in the room until her mother came.  The Complainant submits she asked what was the point of the meeting as nothing was solved.  The Complainant submits they did not give her a fair chance to speak as he kept cutting her off.

The Complainant submits her Year Head called her out of class the next day and said the Principal wanted to speak to her.  The Complainant submits her parents gave feedback after the meeting.  The Complainant submits the Principal said to her that she should let the matter go and that he made it seem like it was her fault.  The Complainant said she was distressed about that and that she wouldn’t feel comfortable talking to him (the school Principal) in general and that he was defending the boy.  The Complainant submits the Principal was shutting it down and not listening to her.  The Complainant submits her Mam had emailed to say she was disappointed about the meeting.

The Complainant submits that the Principal asked to speak to her in Home Economics and she said she didn’t want to as she had lost trust in them.  The Complainant submits the Principal said she had embarrassed him in front of the whole class and that he got so angry and the Home Ec teacher came to see if she was ok.

The Complainant moves on the issue around her graduation and she said that her religion teacher when she was practising for the talent show asked her if she’d like to prepare a song and she said she (the Complainant) could perform it at the graduation ceremony.  The Complainant submits she prepared a speech and wrote an original song and she spent so much time on it.  The Complainant submits her religion teacher called her over and told her that the Principal had said it had to be either the song or the speech.  The Complainant submits she was really upset. 

Upon inquiry the Complainant confirms that nobody had two roles at the graduation ceremony.  The Complainant said she said to the religion teacher that she would like to speak to the Principal with her parents.  The Complainant submits her Dad came to the school and she went with her Dad to ask to speak to the Principal.  The Complainant submits the Deputy Principal came along and asked her what was going on.  The Complainant submits her Dad tried to talk to the Deputy Principal and asked could they make an appointment and she said the Principal was not available to her Dad and that she was very rude.  The Complainant submits the bullying was still ongoing and she was very upset.  The Complainant submits the Principal was very angry with her and her family and that her Mam reported him to TUSLA.  The Complainant submits TUSLA said they could come back to the school. 

The Complainant confirms, upon inquiry as to how long they were out of school, that they were all back in school the following day.  The Complainant submits there is supposed to be a process when you are removing children and that her Mam had to take action and talk to TUSLA.  The Complainant submits the Principal was very frustrated with her family and that the Principal did not want to talk to them because he was angry.

Summary of cross-examination of Complainant

The Complainant submits she was born in Dublin and that she is religious.  The Complainant confirms the Restorative Practice (hereafter RP) meeting occurred because of an allegation of bullying.  The Respondent representative affirms with the Complainant that she had said in evidence that the alleged bully spoke first and it is put to her that the principles of RP were explained to them and a question was asked at the outset ‘who wants to go first’.  The Complainant accepts he gave his account and that he denied the allegations.  It is put to the Complainant that the Year Head was actually at the RP meeting as a witness and that she would later give evidence that at no point did the boy raise his voice or snigger as she had testified or stop her from talking to which the Comlplainant replies ‘he did’. 

It is put to the Complainant that she had said in her evidence that he was laughing and scoffing and that she was not allowed to speak which she confirms.  It is put to the Complainant that at no stage during the meeting did she make an allegation that he spat at her and she replies ‘yes I did’.  It is put to the Complainant that it was her father who raised this afterwards in an email.

The Respondent representative puts it to the Complainant that the purpose of the meeting would have been explained to her at the outset to which she responds that the boy started coming up with lies.  It is put to the Complainant that he was never allowed to cut across her and that voices were never raised.  The Respondent representative puts it to the Complainant that it is accepted that she was upset and that she became upset because he would not apologise and not because he raised his voice or cut across her or sniggered.

The Complainant confirms the RP meeting took place at the end of the school day.  It is put to the Complainant that the Year Head went out to the car park to get her Mam as she was upset and that her Mam came in and the meeting ended quite amicably with her Mam saying ‘teenagers can be very dramatic’ and asked if she then went home with her Mam to which she replies ‘yes’.

The Respondent representative puts it to the Complainant that at the meeting with the Principal and the Year Head the next day at which she had given evidence that the Principal was angry and frustrated and shouted at her there had in fact been no shouting.

Having regard to the day in mid-December when the Principal asked to speak to her and she gave evidence that he shouted at her it is put to the Complainant the Principal will give evidence that he never shouted at her to which the Complainant replies ‘he did’.

The Complainant is reminded that she confirmed that nobody had two roles at the graduation in her evidence and that her evidence is that the Principal decided that she would not have two roles to which she replies her religion teacher told her that.  It is put to the Complainant that it had nothing to do with the Principal and confirms that it was the Year Head who asked her which she would like to do – speech or song to which she replies ‘yes’.  The Complainant is asked if she accepts nobody had two roles to which she replies ‘yes’ followed by ‘why did she (religion teacher) tell me I could do two.’

The Complainant is asked if she accepts she was given the option and that she elected to do neither to which she replies ‘she does not see why there had to be a choice’.  It is put to the Complainant that she was given an option to which she replies ‘ I couldn’t decide and it wasn’t fair to me what they did.”

It is put to the Complainant that she was never kicked out of the school and she is asked if she was aware her father had made a report to TUSLA. 

Summary of direct evidence of mother of Complainant on affirmation

The Complainant’s mother submits that on 17th November she went to collect the children from school and her daughter came out to the car and she was crying and distressed.  The Complainant’s mother submits her daughter said a boy had barked in her ear and spat on her.  The Complainant’s mother submits the Principal said he would have word with the boy and a Restorative Practice meeting took place. 

The Complainant’s mother submits that when she went to collect her daughter that day her son came to the car and he said that her daughter’s Year Head wanted to talk to her.  The Complainant’s mother submits she was not in a position to go in as she was in her house pyjamas and there was no appointment, no notice, nothing of this meeting.  The Complainant’s mother submits she went in and she spoke to the Guidance Counsellor and the Year Head and she was told no resolution had been found in the Restorative Practice meeting.  The Complainant’s mother submits that on the way home her daughter told her what had happened and that she was upset.

The Complainant’s mother submits the bullying did not stop and she (the Complainant) could not focus and that she (the mother) tried to communicate with the school.  The Complainant’s mother submits her son too was bullied and he was in a cast for 6 weeks.  The Complainant’s mother submits she needs all her kids to be safe in school so that they can focus on their education.

The Complainant’s mother submits the bullying escalated after she had sent the Principal the email after the RP meeting where the boy said he didn’t do nothing.  The Complainant’s mother submits there should have been an agreement to stay out of each other’s space.  The Complainant’s mother submits she received a phone call from the Principal where he said to her that she thinks she is better than anyone else and that she is bringing allegations against his staff and that he will not stand for it and that he shouted at her.   The Complainant’s mother submits she has done everything to be involved with the school and that she has always tried to work with the school.

The Complainant’s mother submits that on the 19th December they met with the Principal at his request and the Year Head was at the meeting also.  She submits that they had requested that the Deputy Principal be present at the meeting.  The Complainant’s mother submits the Principal was upset and she could tell this by his body language.  She submits the Principal said ‘if we do not obey the rules of the school remove the children’.  The Complainant’s mother submits her daughter (the Complainant) did not feel safe and the room got really small and her chest was hurting and her heart was pounding and she had to get out of the room. 

The Complainant’s mother submits she asked the secretary to get the kids and her arms started to hurt and she got pins and needles in her fingers.  The Complainant’s mother submits she could not breathe, she panicked and she thought she was getting a heart attack.  The Complainant’s mother submits they couldn’t afford to move schools and she told this to the Deputy Principal when she came along and she tried to reassure her.

The Complainant’s mother submits her husband called an ambulance.  The Complainant’s mother submits she left a voice mail to the social worker in TUSLA that they needed help as their children had been kicked out of the school.  The Complainant’s mother submits the social worker told her the kids can go back the next day.

The Complainant’s mother submits that on 20 December the Principal filed a TUSLA report and the social worker never came to talk to the kids.  The Complainant’s mother submits her family was grieving as they had lost a family friend in November.  The Complainant’s mother said it was painful to sit through what the TUSLA report says.  She submits the Principal said they had four children in the school and she cannot understand why their religion had to be mentioned.

The Complainant’s mother submits this has all been very traumatic and hurtful and the children’s education has been affected and her daughter (not the Complainant daughter) is now just a sad little girl.  The Complainant’s mother submits she tried her very best to have a good relationship with the school and she tried to be involved.

The Complainant’s mother submits the Principal says in the TUSLA report her son had swollen hands. 

The Complainant’s mother submits she did not mean to bring allegations against the school but the Principal says she is mentally insane.

Summary of cross-examination of Complainant’s mother

The witness is asked if she accepts that prior to the bullying allegation put forward by her daughter (the Complainant) she had a good relationship with the school which she does accept and submits she worked very hard with the school and details events in which she participated including renting a bus at her own expense for which she never got paid.  It is put to the Complainant’s mother that she would email the Principal a lot and reference is made to a number of emails dated 1/10/2022, 5/10/2022, 8/10/2022, 10/10/2022, 19/10/2022,8/11/2022 continuing up to 17/11/2023 on various dates in the intervening period.  The Complainant’s mother submits she likes to write.

The Complainant’s mother is directed to the two emails sent to the Principal the night of the RP meeting, one from her and one from her husband and asks if she accepts that one email would have done to which she replies ‘yes’.

The Respondent representative directs the Complainant’s mother to the day of the RP meeting after which the Year Head came out to get her which she corrects by submitting it was her son who came out to get her.   It is put to the witness that when she went in to the room, in which the meeting was held, she had said to the two teachers present that ‘teenagers can be very dramatic to which she replies she did not say that and continues to submit what was the point of the meeting if the bullying does not stop and that her daughter (the Complainant) was hurt and that she suffered after the boy barked in her ear.  It is put to the Complainant’s mother that the guidelines were adhered to, the school engaged in the process but the Complainant did not like the outcome.

The Complainant’s mother submits the boy is denying he bullied her daughter and he is calling her a liar.

The Complainant’s mother is asked if she accepts that when her son was bullied and pushed in the school yard the school dealt with it in line with the procedures and the boy was suspended which she does accept.

The Respondent representative refers the Complainant’s mother again to the very high volume of emails to the Principal and refers her to the phone conversation that took place on 8 December and if she remember this to which she replies ‘yes’.  It is put to the Complainant’s mother that the Principal will give evidence that he explained to her in a very matter of fact way that she is making very serious allegations against the teachers in the school to which she replies that her daughter (the Complainant) wasn’t bullied only once it had been going on through the year.

When asked why she reported all the teachers to the Teaching Council the Complainant’s mother responds that she didn’t report them all just the Principal.  It is put to the Complainant’s mother that the Principal did not shout at her.

The Complainant’s mother is directed to the meeting that took place on the 19th December which she confirms took place in the school and confirms that those present were herself, her husband, the Year Head and the Principal.  It is put to the Complainant’s mother that she had made a number of demands who should be present to which she replies she did not feel safe around the Principal as he can be very scary when he is angry.  It is put to the Complainant’s mother that she was told at the meeting on 19th December that if she didn’t adhere to the Admissions Policy of the School and the Code of Behaviours she would have to remove the children and it is put to her that she didn’t like that and she stormed out to which she replies ‘no’.

The Complainant’s mother is directed to an email she sent to the Principal in which she asked the Principal that in the future he should contact her if any of her children are distressed in school and if possible not to contact her husband as he might not answer his phone and that she has raised her kids with no help all on her own and their well-being and safety is her most priority.  The Complainant’s mother submits that what she meant was that she had no other family here. 

The Complainant’s mother is asked why does she get to decide who attends the meeting to which she replies she had a panic attack she went to the reception area and she put her head on her husband’s lap.  It is put to the Complainant’s mother that she was wailing loudly to which she replies ‘it is all a lie.’  It is put to the Complainant’s mother that she was causing distress to the staff and it is put to her that she was making a scene in a public area in the school and she refused to go to a more private place.

The Complainant’s mother is asked to confirm that she requested her children to be summoned and if they were present when all of this was going on to which she replies ‘yes’.

It is put to the Complainant’s mother that she moved eventually to a quieter area and she was offered tea or water and that she left at 12.50 some two hours after she had entered the building to which she replies no she left the building at 1pm and she was assisted to her car by the Year Head and the Deputy Principal and the Home School Community Liaison.

The Complainant’s mother submits that the Deputy Principal reassured her that she would talk to him and the children wouldn’t be removed.

The Respondent representative makes reference to 14 texts sent by the Complainant’s mother to the Home School Community Liaison to which she did not respond to which the witness replies ‘no’ she did not respond and the Complainant’s mother submits is this not what a school liaison person does making reference to the content of the texts including asking the Home School Community Liaison to “advise us how do to set up a meeting with the board of management” as that is her job. 

The Complainant’s mother is asked if her husband had told her he had received an email from the Principal stating that he had been advised by TUSLA to make a child protection referral to which she replies yes. 

It is put to the Complainant’s mother that the Principal was advised by a senior social worker in TUSLA to make a referral and names the social worker to whom the Principal spoke and it is confirmed by the Complainant’s mother that a complaint was filed with that social worker’s professional body by her and her husband.

Summary of direct evidence of Complainant’s father on affirmation

The Complainant’s father submits the school is the closest school to their house and he wants all his children in the one school so with the help of the home liaison person they moved the Complainant there and they were very positive about the school until 17 November and the bullying.  The Complainant’s father submits that on 19 December he made a complaint about how the RP was conducted and that it was harassment and an abuse of power.

The Complainant’s father submits he thought it was reasonable to request the Deputy Principal at the meeting because his daughter was afraid of the Principal and afraid of the Year Head.  On enquiry the Complainant’s father submitted it was part of their Religion that a married woman should not be on her own in a room with a man who is not her husband and on further inquiry asking if he had notified the school of this specific accommodation that his wife required for school meetings with male teachers or with the Principal his response was ‘they should know this’.

The Complainant’s father made reference to the day his wife became unwell and he voiced his objections on the words used to describe what had occurred and said he had looked for the CCTV and it wasn’t provided.  The Complainant’s father then made a serious allegation against the school principal at which point the hearing was adjourned.

Adjudicator Note

This matter was addressed at the opening of hearing on day 2.  The Complainant’s father submits he did not mean anything by what he had said and that English was not his first language.  The school Principal accepted an apology in the interests of continuing with the proceedings. 

Summary of direct evidence of Complainant’s father on affirmation (contd.) Day 2

The Complainant’s father submits they were victimised and harassed when they stood up for their daughter (the Complainant) and that procedures were not followed and their children suffered.  The Complainant’s father submits they never abused their children emotionally or physically and that they were treated different to any other parent as the Principal had said he would not see him specifically. 

The Complainant’s father submits he (the Principal) treated him differently and harassed him making that report and that is why he is making this claim for what was said in the TUSLA report and he wants it withdrawn. 

Summary of cross-examination of Complainant’s father

The Respondent representative outlines that he will start where the Complainant’s father finished and that was he turned up at the school on May 14 without an appointment looking to see the Principal and the Deputy Principal came to the hatch and his daughter (the Complainant) was with him and she was upset and when asked if he remembers that he replies ‘yes.’

The Complainant’s father is asked if he knew his daughter had been provided with a choice as to which she would prefer to do at the graduation ceremony namely the speech or the song.  After a long pause while he thinks the Complainant’s father replies ‘yes’ she had explained to him in the car and she was upset and he knew.  It is put to the Complainant’s father that he went in to reception and he raised his voice to which he replies he didn’t raise his voice.  It is put to the Complainant that the Deputy Principal explained to him that it was a busy week for the school to which he replies ‘no she raised her voice she tantalised me.’

The Complainant’s father is asked is that when he shouted at the Deputy Principal and told her that he was going to report her that he would report her to which he replies he said to her that his daughter (the Complainant) has the right to participate in the graduation ceremony.

The Complainant’s father is asked if he accepts that he cannot just turn up at the school and demand to see the Principal to which he replies ‘yes I can.  I wanted to make an appointment.’

The Respondent representative directs the Complainant’s father to the meeting on 19 December  and the Complainant’s father submits his wife left the room after she had asked for the Deputy Principal.  The Respondent representative refers to the aftermath of that meeting and to what continued in the school foyer for almost an hour in front of his children. 

The Respondent representative makes reference to the ES1 form narrative and what is termed the “decision of the Principal to kick the children out of the school.”

It is put to the Complainant’s father that if they do not like it and cannot adhere to the school policies maybe they should remove their children has now been conflated with ‘remove them’.

On inquiry as to whether the Complainant’s father had read the school Admissions Policy and the Code of Behaviour at the time of enrolling his children in the school he confirmed that hadn’t read them.

The Complainant’s father is asked if he reported the senior social worker from TUSLA to her professional representative body to which he replies ‘yes’.

The Complainant’s father submits that his daughter (the Complainant) was upset because she was not allowed to do two turns at the graduation.  The Respondent representative makes reference to correspondence from the Respondent solicitor to the Complainant’s father of 10 September 2024 regarding the various emails sent to the Respondent solicitor in which the parties copied on the various emails included norma.foley@oireachtas.ie; taoiseach@taoiseach.gov.ie; legal@ihrec.ie with a request in the aforementioned correspondence  that the Complainant’s father cease the copying of third parties in light of the confidentiality of matters and data protection issues to which the Complainant’s father responds he had also copied the Department of Defence but that was a mistake.

Complainant’s closing submission delivered by Complainant’s mother

The Complainant’s mother submits it is very sad that it has come to this and the way the situation was described and that they had hoped the truth would be told.  It is submitted everyone gave oath swearing on the bible and that we know what happened and they know what happened. 

It is submitted they are not rich and they are not trained to twist the truth and they have come here as a simple humble people and they are a family.  It is submitted her children are excellent students and she submits she has put in a lot of work to be involved in their lives.  It is submitted her kids mean everything to her.  An apology is submitted for the huge amount of emails but she wants to keep the school informed and she likes to write.  It is submitted the picture with the rash was provided to the school in case anything happens to her daughter and that she sent the school all the documents and prescriptions about her son also to the school as he has chronic asthma and chronic migraines. 

The Complainant’s mother submits it is heart-breaking for her to see four adults standing before her saying she was causing carnage.  The Complainant’s mother submits if that was the case he would have provided the video and that the reason he did not provide it speaks for itself. 

The Complainant’s mother submits that in the TUSLA report it says four children of a Jehovah’s Witness family.  The Complainant’s mother submits she has sent emails to Norma Foley, to Simon Harris and that she will not rest until the truth comes out.

The Complainant’s mother submits she was not wailing and she was not muttering and that is defamatory and insulting to her. 

CA-00064427-001

Overview of written submission

Allegation of Bullying

On 17 November 2023 the Complainant, along with other pupils of the respondent attended an open day at DCU.  During that trip, the Complainant made an allegation a male pupil was “barking” at them.  The Complainant’s mother contacted the school Principal that evening claiming that this particular pupil had been constantly bullying the Complainant and barking in her ears.  This was the first occasion upon which the Principal had been made aware of any such allegation. It was claimed that the Complainant had been physically injured and in pain due to the barking.

The Complainant’s father had also emailed the Principal providing an account of the incident indicating that the Complainant’s face was ‘full of spit’.

A restorative practice meeting took place on 7 December 2023.  Restorative practice is a strategy used within the school after relationships have broken down to try restoring an amicable working relationship.  The meeting followed an agreed structure.   The meeting was presided over by the school Guidance Counsellor trained in Restorative Practice and the Complainant’s Year Head was also in the room.  The pupil in question indicated that he had shouted over to the Complainant and the other pupil to get their attention.

The Complainant was then given a chance to speak. She indicated that she did not wish to continue on the basis that the male pupil had been telling lies. The meeting ended as no conclusion had been reached in respect of the matter.

The Complainant was visibly upset after the meeting and was asked to stay behind by the Year Head who indicated that she would call the Complainant’s mother but she said that her mother was coming to collect her.  The Complainant’s mother came into the room and comforted her daughter, who was visibly upset.  It was explained that no resolution had been found and that all parties needed to move on as it was their Leaving Certificate year, and that was most important.  The Complainant’s mother agreed and thanked the teachers.  She said she knows what it's like living with teenagers, she has a house full of them and they can be so dramatic. 

The meeting ended amicably, and the Complainant and her mother left the school building.

It is submitted that night, the Complainant’s mother emailed the Principal stating that the male pupil was “allowed to bully the Complainant further by calling her a liar".  For the avoidance of doubt, it is submitted that at no point was this said.   The Complainant’s mother indicated that she felt she had no support from the school.  The Respondent submits this was in stark contrast to how the meeting had actually ended.

The Respondent submits a series of phone calls and emails ensued as between the Complainant’s  parents and the school Principal and various teachers at the school.  It is submitted repeated allegations were made in respect of the conduct of the school Principal during these phone calls, all of which are denied.   It is submitted that at all stages the school Principal conducted himself in a professional and appropriate manner.

The Respondent submits a meeting was arranged to take place on 19 December 2023.  The meeting was attended by the school Principal and the Complainant’s Year Head.   The meeting was arranged due to an instruction given to all the children of the family in the school not to speak to school management or certain teachers without a parent present.   Also present at the meeting were the Complainant’s parents.   

The Respondent submits in the days leading up to the meeting the Complainant’s parents had made a number of demands by email in respect of who should be present at the meeting and when it should take place.   The Respondent submits that at the meeting the Complainant’s parents were informed that if they didn't adhere to the admissions policy and code of behaviour, to which they had agreed on accepting a place in the school then they would have to remove their children from school.   The Respondent submits the Complainant’s mother became very angry and stormed out of the office.   

The Respondent submits the Complainant’s father continued to make negative and slanderous allegations against both the Principal and the Year Head.   The Respondent submits the Year Head informed the Complainant’s father that his remarks were without foundation and that if he continued she would need to contact her trade union the ASTI.

The Respondent submits that five minutes after the Complainant’s mother had left the meeting, the Principal’s Secretary came in to indicate that she needed assistance.   At this stage, the Complainant’s mother was lying across chairs in a public area of the school wailing loudly.   The Respondent submits that she refused to go to a more private area on a number of occasions.  An ambulance was called by the Complainant’s father and over the following 60 minutes the children of the family  ran to various gates of the school to see if it had arrived. Throughout this time the Complainant’s mother was wailing and muttering incomprehensibly in the public reception area of the school causing distress to staff of the Respondent.

The Complainant’s father refused to let his wife be moved to a quieter area and insisted that his children should see their mother in the public area.

The Respondent submits that eventually the Complainant’s parents together with the children moved to a quieter place to wait for the ambulance.   The Complainant’s mother was offered tea and water, she refused both.  No ambulance arrived.  The Complainant’s father drove the car to the entrance near the office and the Complainant’s mother was assisted to the exit door by the Deputy Principal and another member of staff.   This occurred at approximately 12:50pm nearly two hours after they had entered the building.  

The Respondent submits upon leaving the school, the Complainant’s mother appeared to be at ease and left unaided.  The ambulance was cancelled.  The Respondent submits that evening the Complainant’s parents sent a number of texts to the Home School Community Liaison  informing her of events that had occurred earlier in the day.  The Home School Community Liaison ignored these texts.   She had been receiving a constant stream of text messages from both of the Complainant’s parents voicing various grievances and had been advised not to respond.

The Respondent submits that in the aftermath of the meeting, the Complainant’s father demanded a meeting with the Respondent (Board of Management).   For the avoidance of all doubt it is not the practice of the Respondent to meet with individual parents. 

TUSLA Referral

The Respondent submits that owing to the conduct of complainant’s mother the Principal contacted TUSLA.   The Respondent spoke with a Senior Social Worker who advised him to send in a mandated report.   The Respondent submits this report was completed the following day 20 December 2023.

The mandated report was made in respect of all the children and represented the culmination of various factors which are outlined in the report itself.  The report was made in accordance with s.14 of the Children First Act 2015.  The report was made after the Principal sought advice in his role as the Designated Liaison Person for child protection in the school.  This advice was received over the phone from a Senior Social worker in TUSLA the Child and Family Agency.  The phone call was witnessed by the Year Head.  The Respondent submits concerns were raised over the erratic behaviour of the Complainant’s mother and the insistence by the Complainant’s father that his children see their mother while she appeared in visible distress.

The Respondent submits the report was made taking into account the Child Protection Procedures for Primary and Post -Primary Schools (revised 2023). 

Section 14 of the Act provides that discrimination will not be taken to occur where an action that is taken is required by any enactment or Order of a Court.  It is respectfully submitted that the referral was required to be made following the phone call made by the Principal in the aftermath of the incident on the 19 December 2023 to a Senior Social Worker.  In such circumstances, the Principal was duty bound to make the mandated report.

Without prejudice, the Complainants have failed to establish a prima facie case that the referral was linked in any way to their religious faith.  The reasons for the referral are set out in the ES2 Form provided by the respondent and oral evidence will be adduced of same at the hearing of this matter.   Further and without prejudice, the respondent relies on s.14 of the Equal Status Act 2000.

School Graduation

At the school graduation that year, the Complainant wished to both perform a song of her composing and make a speech.  The Respondent submits it is the practice of the Respondent that a student may only do one activity in the school graduation ceremony.   This is so because it is a whole year group event.  It was suggested to the Complainant that she opt for which she would prefer.  The Complainant decided to opt out of the graduation altogether.

The Respondent submits that a number of days prior to the ceremony the Complainant’s father arrived at the school reception without an appointment and demanded to see the Principal.  He was informed by the Deputy Principal that the Principal was unavailable and he proceeded to shout loudly that he would report both the Principal and the Deputy Principal to the Department of Education and to TUSLA.

The Complainant’s father did in fact make a report to TUSLA and a complaint has been made to the Teaching Council in respect of the Principal.  The Complainant’s father has written emails to the Minister for Education and the Taoiseach’s Office. 

The Respondent submits these proceedings comprise a series of generalised complaints that the complainants have in respect of a bullying complaint that was dealt with by the respondent in accordance with its procedures, in good faith, and in an effort to do justice between the parties. 

It is respectfully submitted by the Respondent that the within complaints bear no nexus with the Equal Status Acts.  In the circumstances the complainants are not entitled to the relief sought or any relief.

Law relied upon by the Respondent

Section 3 Equal Status Act, 2000

Section 3(2) Equal Status Act, 2000

Section 3(2)(j) Equal Status Act, 2000

Section 14 Equal Status Act, 2000

Section 38A Equal Status Act, 2000

Second Schedule to the Children First Act 2015 section 14(1)

Medbury Developments v. Valpeters [EDA0917]

Graham Anthony & Company v. Margett [EDA038]

Saoirse Soden v. Supervalue Harris’ Supervalue [ADJ-00034460]

Olumide Smith v. Office of the Ombudsman [2022] IECA 99

A Parent v. A Police Force [ADJ-00001491]

Summary of direct evidence of Respondent witness the school Principal on oath (hereafter SP)

The SP outlined that he has been principal of the school since 2017 and that there are currently three members of the family in the school and a fourth member enrolled and due to commence at the school in September 2025.  The SP submits there had been a good relationship prior the bullying with a high level of communication.  The SP submits there had been an issue with the windows in the house occupied by the family that may have been giving rise to respiratory problems and he had been made aware of this and in an effort to help considered who he might be able to influence to get the windows replaced quicker and he actioned this via correspondence to a relevant person.

The SP makes reference to an email and a picture of their dog with an injured paw that had incurred a vets bill for the family and he had given a significant reduction.  The SP makes reference to a photo sent to him of one of the children with a rash on her back and he submits he regrets that he did not advise them at the time that the sending of such was inappropriate.

The SP outlines that the allegation of bullying was made after the trip to DCU and he called the boy in and he submits the boy looked at him like he had lost his mind when he put the allegation to him and said didn’t do that which was alleged.

The SP submits they got training in Restorative Practice a few years ago and as there were allegations from both sides regarding bullying he spoke to the Complainant’s mother and outlined to her how it would be handled.

The SP submits there has always been a high level of communication from both parents.  The SP is asked to outline what happened after the RP meeting and he submits the Complainant had been a very fine student, always very polite to him and very personable.  The SP submits he requested the Year Head to attend the meeting with the Complainant and they had a chat with her and suggested that maybe accept this and move on as it’s a very important year for all the 6th year students and he was keen that there would be no disharmony among the group of students.

The SP is asked to explain the incident where the Complainant says he shouted at her.  The SP outlines that he had heard the Complainant was back in the school as she had been out sick for a while and he went to the Home Ec room to speak to her to see if she was ok and she wouldn’t speak to him unless her parents were present.  The SP submits he never raised his voice.

The SP is directed to the meeting arranged for 19th and he submits he was becoming exasperated and losing the will to live at this stage and he had said to the Complainant’s mother in a very matter of fact way that she just can’t be making all these allegations about the teachers.  The Principal outlines that the purpose of the meeting on the 19th was to inform the family to inform the Complainant’s father that if he is not happy to accept the school Admissions Policy and the Code of Behaviour that he would have no other option but to ask him to remove his children as it is simply not possible to run a school with the children refusing to engage with their teachers or the Principal without their parents being present.

The SP submits the parents did not sit down when they entered the meeting room despite being invited to do so and the only voice that was raised was that of the Complainant’s mother.  The SP submits the Complainant’s mother made a few more allegations against the Year Head at which the Year Head advised that if this continued much further she would report it to her trade union and seek representation from them.

The SP submits members of staff had voiced their concern to him about what went on in the school foyer after the Complainant’s mother left the meeting and some of the staff were very upset by what they had witnessed.

The SP outlines that he is the DCP under the Child Protection Act so matters are brought to him and he makes referrals which he describes is the least pleasant part of his job as principal.  The SP submits that he also has to report on these matters at Board level.

The SP submits he spoke to a senior social worker in advance of making the referral to seek advice from her.  The SP submits the reason their religion is mentioned in the referral is to ensure that those dealing with are sensitive to their needs.  The SP submits concerns were raised by those who witnessed what had gone on and that is why he sought advice.

The SP submits that contrary to the allegation that he was the architect of the decision that the Complainant could do one of two items at the graduation that he has absolutely nothing to do with the graduation apart from preparing and making a speech at it and he leaves everything else to those that are far more qualified than he is.  The SP submits that the Complainant elected to do nothing at the graduation and she was given the choice. 

The SP submits May is an exceptionally busy month in schools and they call it mad May in his school with preparing for three graduations, sixth year, junior cert year and transition year and preparing for the state exams and preparing for the influx of new students in September.  When asked about the complaint made about him to the Teaching Council the SP submits that so many complaints have been made by them at this stage he’s lost track. 

Cross-examination of school Principal undertaken by Complainant’s father

The SP is corrected in regard to what he had said about the windows.  The Complainant’s father asserts the window were replaced because he himself contacted the local newspaper. 

The SP is asked if he had any concerns about his son in the three years he had been in the school and he is asked if he has written evidence of the concerns raised (after the incident in the school foyer) to which the Principal replies that they keep child protection files and that teachers are not mandated to sign anything.

It is put to the witness that he himself said he lost it and that he treated the family with anger.  The Complainant’s father is reminded that the words spoken by the Principal were ‘I lost the will to live’.

It is put to the SP that he said the staff were traumatised and to please explain to which the witness  responds they were very upset.  The Principal reaffirms that he was not involved in the organising of the graduation and that it ended up being a night that was spoiled by the tension of what might happen.

The Complainant’s father puts it to the Principal that they were victimised by making a report to TUSA. 

Summary of evidence of Respondent witness Year Head for the Complainant’s year on oath (hereafter YH)

The YH outlines that she never taught any of the family or has never had a cross word with any of them or never has had to detain any of the.  The YH confirms that she was present at the RP meeting that took place when the allegations of bullying were made after the trip to DCU.  The YH submits she was present at the meeting in the capacity of a witness and that it took place in her room as its quite a private room.  The witness submits the format was explained at the outset.  The witness submits that staff had been asked to keep an eye out after the allegations were made and there was tension between the parties in a small group of 23.  The witness submits the actions alleged were totally out of character for the boy and there been no issues before. 

The YH submits the Guidance Counsellor set out the parameters at the outset and she asked who would like to begin at which there was silence so she asked a second time at which the alleged bully said if nobody else wanted to he’d go first.  The witness states that what the Complainant stated happened at the meeting simply did not happen.  The witness submits the Complainant stated if he’s not going to admit what he did that she was not taking part.  The witness submits the situation they were in was that the Complainant wanted an apology and the alleged bully refuses as he denies the allegations so there was no meeting of minds.

The witness submits she could see the Complainant was upset and that she would have to call her Mum.  The witness submits she went outside and she could see the Complainant’s brother waiting to be collected so she waited in the yard for her to arrive as she knew she would be on her way by now.  The witness submits the Guidance Counsellor stayed in the room with the Complainant.  The witness submits she asked the Complainant’s mother if she’d like to come to the room and she did and she saw her child (the Complainant) was upset and she comforted her.  The witness submits she does not know what the Complainant said to her mother at that time and if she had said to her she had been scoffed at and shouted at which she alleged.  The witness submits the Complainant’s mother said ‘I know how dramatic teenagers can be I live in a house full of them.’

The witness submits she was contacted by the Principal to say serious allegations had been made about both her and the teacher presiding over the RP meeting.  The witness submits she has every right to stand up for herself when somebody attacks her like that and she refers to the wording and the slander in the email sent to the Principal. 

The witness submits she never raised her voice to that young lady (the Complainant) and that never in 32 years of teaching has she been accused of the horrendous things this family has accused her of.  The YH submits that the matters alleged by the Complainant to have occurred at the meeting the following day with the Complainant and the Principal and herself absolutely did not happen.  The witness submits that she is a professional and the Complainant is a student in her care.  The witness submits it was a pastoral meeting and she had said to the Complainant that this is a very important year for her and she submits she absolutely did not raise her voice.

Regarding the purpose of the meeting on 19 December the YH submits there was a difficulty as the Complainant would not engage with them and she further submits you just can’t run a school where the student won’t engage. 

The witness submits the parents came into the room and refused to sit.  The witness submits the Complainant’s mother did not want her (YH) present at the meeting and she was looking for the Deputy Principal to attend. 

The witness submits the meeting was going nowhere and the Complainant’s parents would not sit down and join them in a professional way.  The YH submits the Complainant’s mother started to raise her voice and she didn’t want her there. 

The witness submits the Complainant’s mother stormed out and they were as yet unaware of what was going on outside.  The witness submits the Complainant’s father was being very rude to her and she submits she should be afforded dignity in her workplace and she simply will not accept this.  The witness submits the school secretary came to the door of the room and told them there was an incident developing outside. 

The witness submits there were noises coming from the foyer loud moaning and groaning.  The witness submits this was worrying and she had never witnessed anything like it.  The witness submits she was upset witnessing this as an adult and further submits she would not want her children to witness something like that. 

The witness submits she found it to be disturbing upsetting and traumatising and measures had to be taken to divert students away from the foyer area.  The witness submits she asked the Complainant’s father to come to the hatch and submits she said to the Complainant’s father that she did not think it was appropriate that their children should see this to which she submits he (the Complainant’s father) ‘they need to see their mother suffering.’

The witness submits this all lasted an hour and further submits it seemed to go on forever.  The witness submits it was chaos and the parents (of the Complainant) were simply not going to engage with them and she further submits she cannot control what the Complainant’s mother feels about her.

The witness confirms she was present when the Principal spoke on the phone to the senior social worker in TUSLA and was told to put everything in the report.  The witness reaffirms she was present when the Principal was told to make the report.

The YH confirms she was part of the graduation organising team.  The witness submits everyone in the class got their moment and there were caps and gowns etc.  The witness submits it’s a major milestone and a huge achievement for the students.  The witness submits that the Complainant was head girl which was a huge privilege in the school.  The witness outlines that they have a secular graduation and that all are involved in the same way.  The witness submits the Complainant was invited to sing a song or make a speech.  The witness submits the Complainant opted out but that she did walk in with her cap and gown.

The witness submits that up to the eleventh hour she did not know what the Complainant wished to do.  The witness submits the Complainant came to her room and she asked the Complainant what she wished to do and she (the Complainant) said she couldn’t choose.

Summary of cross-examination of YH undertaken by Complainant’s father

The cross examination of the YH focused mainly on questions around why, when he handed his private phone to her when the ambulance service wished to speak to a member of staff, did she then walk away from him with his private phone.  The witness responded that she had to walk away to somewhere quieter as she simply could not hear what was being said over the noise being made in the foyer by the Complainant’s mother. 

Much of the cross examination that followed consisted of submissions rather than questions and it was necessary to remind the Complainant’s father more than once of relevance and the fact cross-examination requires questions to be asked and not submissions to be made, the opportunity for which would be provided to him in the closing submissions.

Summary of direct evidence of Respondent witness the Deputy Principal (hereafter DP) on oath

The DP outlines that she has been in the teaching profession for 32 years and in management capacity since 2010.  The DP has been in her current position in the school since 2014.

The witness confirms she was not present at the meeting on 19th but that she observed the aftermath.  The witness confirms she had been in class and when class was over and she came out of the science lab which is up two flights of stairs from the foyer she heard wailing sounds coming from there.  The witness submits she came down as quickly as she could and saw the children who seemed to be comforting their mother and the children were visibly upset.  The witness submits she came upon the scene not having witnessed anything that had gone on before.

The DP submits she and the Home School Community Liaison (hereafter HSCL) asked them to come with them to somewhere more private.  The witness submits it took quite a while to get her (the Complainant’s mother) to agree to come to the office and eventually she and the HSCL took an arm each and assisted her.

The witness submits she was not aware that an ambulance had been called and she had no idea of what had happened.  The witness submits the Complainant’s mother kept talking about the children and buying books and the Principal and all the while the children were there trying to calm her down.

The witness submits that there was still no sign of the ambulance that she was now aware had been called and she asked the Complainant’s father to bring the car around to the side as the Complainant’s mother was now walking nearly unaided and we brought her out to the car where the witness told the children to get in first and then got her (the Complainant’s mother) settled in the passenger seat.  The witness submits the Complainant’s mother appeared to back to normal so the witness submits she phoned the ambulance service when they left and had cancelled the ambulance as she did not want them to be coming out needlessly now that the family had left.

The witness submits that the Principal meets every parent by appointment.

The witness submits that on 13th May when the Complainant’s father came to the school looking to see the Principal she came to the hatch and spoke to him and tried to explain to him how busy a week it was for the school with three graduations not to mention all the other things that had to be managed.  The witness submits the Complainant’s father told her that his daughter (the Complainant) was very upset.  The witness submits the Complainant’s father raised his voice to her and the more calm she remained and the more calmly she spoke the more irate the Complainant’s father became.

The witness submits the Complainant’s father told her he would add her to the list of people being reported.

The DP outlines her role at the graduation and that is to call out a roll of honour – each name and she does not do a speech.

The DP submits that on 18th December 2023 she had gone to talk to the Complainant before tutorial class but the conversation never took place as she (the Complainant) said that she would prefer not to and that she did not want to talk to her without her parents present.

Cross-examination of the DP (undertaken by Complainant’s father)

The witness is asked if any member of the school staff contacted his children to see if there is anything they can do to which the witness responds that she checked in with the children and that she was concerned for them all and that she asked them all in turn if they were ok.  The DP submits that she has never had a problem with any of the children.

Summary of direct evidence of the Respondent witness the HSCL (on oath)

The witness confirms she was the YH for the Complainant’s sister’s class.   The witness submits she was not present at the meeting on 19  December but she came on the aftermath and said the Complainant’s mother seemed to be in serious distress in the foyer.  The witness submits she tried to move things along to her room and that she tried to calm down the situation utilising de-escalation techniques and breathing techniques and generally just talking to the family. 

The witness submits she had received a high volume of WhatsApp messages on 20 December to which she had not responded. 

Summary of cross-examination of the HSCL (undertaken by Complainant’s father)

The cross-examination undertaken by the Complainant’s father comprised again in the main of submissions and any questioning of the witness that took place related to the description of her role and her obligations to all of his family and claims that she did not fulfil her obligations to them during a recent bereavement. 

Closing submission of Respondent

It is submitted this will be kept quite simple.  It is submitted this is a case about generalised complaints that have no nexus to the Equal Status Act. 

It is submitted an alleged act of bullying took place and the school arranged a meeting the outcome of which was not to the liking of the Complainant.  It is submitted there was no discriminatory act and that even if the Complainant’s account is accepted there is no evidence linked to her faith or her race.

It is clear that the Complainant was not going to engage with the school whether this was something she herself decided or having been told by her father.  It is submitted that either way she was not going to speak and this position maintained by the Complainant necessitated the meeting of 19th December.

It is submitted the SP made a reasonable statement if you do not agree to be bound by the Admissions Policy and the Code of Behaviour you will have to find another school.  It is submitted the SP did not say you will be kicked out. 

It is submitted that as to what happened after that meeting will have to be decided on the balance of probabilities.  It is submitted that the Complainant’s mother was making a scene for an hour and wailing is the phrase that was used and the Complainant’s father insistence that children should watch their mother suffer.  It is submitted it is clear why there were concerns among members of staff.  It is submitted this was a singular event of extreme chaos in the foyer of the school and in line with statutory responsibilities under the Children’s Act 2015 the Principal phoned the senior social worker in TUSLA for advice. 

The SP was told to make a referral and he was told what to put in the referral.  It is submitted that this is an out of court statement that something was said and the SP was told what to include in the mandated report.

It is submitted the making of that report was not an act or discrimination or victimisation and it does not raise an inference.  It is submitted the Respondent is relying on section 14 of the Equal Status Act, 2000. 

It is submitted there is a consistency to be found in the evidence of the Respondent which is not to be found in the evidence of the Complainant.

It is submitted that it was accepted that nobody gets to do two things at the graduation and the Complainant was treated the same as any other pupil.  It is submitted the requirement to carry out one function is not related in any way whatsoever to the Complainant’s race or to her religion. 

It is submitted and noted that the head girl photo has not been pursued.  It is submitted that in each alleged incident the Complainant has failed to raise a prima facie case.

It is submitted that the largest item of the TUSLA report is not linked to their status. 

CA-00064427-001

In conducting my investigation and in reaching my decision, I have reviewed all relevant submissions and supporting documentation presented to me by the parties.  I have carefully considered the oral evidence adduced at hearing.  I have carefully considered the caselaw to which I have been directed by the Respondent.   I deemed it necessary to make my own inquiries into the complaint during hearing to establish and understand the facts and to seek clarification on certain matters. 

It was apparent that the Complainant’s parent took exception to being probed on certain matters as I sought to establish the facts.  Bias was alleged more than once.   It was explained to the Complainant and her parents that I am statutorily bound to make all relevant inquiries into this complaint or indeed any complaint and this may involve a certain amount of probing when I am faced with evidence that is not merely inconsistent but contradictory while I am trying to establish the facts in fulfilment of my duty under statute. 

It is noted the WRC has an inquisitorial function which allows an Adjudication Officer to try to gain some semblance of understanding of what the complaints are in circumstances where there are significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence adduced.   

I have two versions of events before me that are entirely at odds in most respects.  The conflict in the evidence is significant. 

Notwithstanding, I am obliged to draw my conclusions from the facts as presented to me and by the application of the law to those said facts whilst taking into account all other relevant factors and surrounding circumstances.  The role of the Adjudication Officer is to decide the case before him/her, resolving conflicts in evidence according to the direct evidence presented at hearing. 

Where the evidence of the parties differs greatly and cannot be reconciled findings are made on the balance of probabilities.  In my decision-making role I am constrained both by statute and by precedent. 

The Relevant Law

The Equal Status Act 2000-2015 (“the Act”) as amended prohibits discrimination in the provision of goods and services, accommodation and education.  It covers the ten protected grounds of gender, marital status, family status, age, disability, sexual orientation, race, religion, membership of the Traveller Community and housing assistance (only as regards the provision of accommodation). 

I reference the definition of discrimination provided in section 3 of the Act as follows:

3.—(1) For the purposes of this Act discrimination shall be taken to occur—

(a) where a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) or, if appropriate, subsection (3B), (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) where 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,

Or

(c) where an apparently neutral provision would put a person] referred to in any paragraph of section 3(2) at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons, unless the provision is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.

Section 3(2) provides for protected grounds.  Relevant to the within case are:

(c) that one has family status and the other does not or that one has a different family status from the other (the “family status ground”),

(e) that one has a different religious belief from the other, or that one has a religious belief and the other has not (the “religion ground”),

 … (h) that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins (the “ground of race”)

The Complainant has submitted her complaint as that she was discriminated against on the grounds of race and religion and family status albeit the family status ground was not pursued or engaged with at hearing by the Complainant.  

The Complainant submits that she was harassed and victimised. 

Harassment is defined as follows in section 11 of the Act:

Sexual and other harassment.

11.—(1) A person shall not sexually harass or harass (within the meaning of subsection (4) or (5)) another person (“the victim”) where the victim—

(a) avails or seeks to avail himself or herself of any service provided by the person or purchases or seeks to purchase any goods being disposed of by the person,

(b) is the proposed or actual recipient from the person of any premises or of any accommodation or services or amenities related to accommodation, or

(c) is a student at, has applied for admission to or avails or seeks to avail himself or herself of any service offered by, any educational establishment (within the meaning of section 7) at which the person is in a position of authority.

Victimisation is defined as follows in section 3(2)(j) of the Act:

(j) that one—

(i) has in good faith applied for any determination or redress provided for in Part II or III,

(ii) has attended as a witness before the Authority, the adjudication officer or a court in connection with any inquiry or proceedings under this Act,

(iii) has given evidence in any criminal proceedings under this Act,

(iv) has opposed by lawful means an act which is unlawful under this Act, or

(v) has given notice of an intention to take any of the actions specified in subparagraphs (i) to (iv),

and the other has not (the “victimisation ground”).

Section 5 of the Act provides clear direction against prohibited conduct as follows:

“5. – (1) 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.”

I am satisfied the Respondent is providing a service within the meaning of the Act.     

The Burden of Proof

Section 38A of the Act sets out the burden of proof as follows:

Burden of proof.

38A.—(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.

(2) This section is without prejudice to any other enactment or rule of law in relation to the burden of proof in any proceedings which may be more favourable to the person.

(3) Where, in any proceedings arising from a reference of a matter by the Authority to the Director of the Workplace Relations Commissionunder section 23(1), facts are established by or on behalf of the Authority from which it may be presumed that prohibitedconduct or a contravention mentioned in that provision has occurred, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.

It requires the Complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to her.  If the Complainant succeeds in doing so, then, and only then, is it for the Respondent to prove the contrary.  The Labour Court has held consistently that the facts from which the occurrence of discrimination may be inferred must be of “sufficient significance” before a prima facie case is established and the burden of proof shifts to the Respondent. 

In deciding on this complaint, therefore, I must first consider whether the existence of a prima facie case has been established by the Complainant. It is only where such a prima facie case has been established that the burden of proving there was no infringement of the principle of equal treatment passes to the Respondent. The Labour Court in the case of Melbury v Valpeters [EDA0917] held as follows in the context of section 85A of the Employment Equality Act mirrored in the Act:

"…. provides for the allocation of the probative burden in cases within its ambit. 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 speculation 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 establishing the primary facts fairly and squarely on the Complainant and the language of this provision admits of no exceptions to that evidential rule.”

In Cork City Council v McCarthy [EDA0821], the Labour Court held as follows: 

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

In order to shift the burden of proof to the Respondent, the Complainant must not only establish the primary facts being relied upon but must also establish that those facts are of sufficient significance to raise an inference of discrimination.

In Margetts v Graham Anthony & Company Limited [EDA038], the evidential burden which must be discharged by the Complainant before a prima facie case of discrimination can be said to have been established was further clarified by the Labour Court.  The Labour Court stated as follows:

“The mere fact that the complainant falls within one of the discriminatory grounds laid down under the Act is not sufficient in itself to establish a claim of discrimination. The complainant must adduce other facts from which it may be inferred on the balance of probabilities that an act of discrimination has occurred.” [emphasis added] 

When considering the primary facts adduced by the Complainant, I must take into consideration the Respondent’s contrary evidence when determining whether the burden of proof should shift to the Respondent.  The Labour Court in the case of Dyflin Publications Limited v. Spasic [EDA 0823] held as follows:

“…the Court should consider the primary facts which are relied upon by the complainant in their proper context.  It also indicates that in considering if the burden of proof shifts the court should consider any evidence adduced by the respondent to show that, when viewed in their proper context, the facts relied upon do not support the inference contended for by the complainant.”   

The Relevant Facts

The central plank of this complaint is a TUSLA referral made by the Respondent.  At the outset of hearing the Complainant’s mother said she had sought advice from the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC) and she had been told by them that if she raised a complaint at the WRC the WRC would get the TUSLA report “withdrawn”. 

It was explained that such an outcome does not lie within the remit of the WRC.  The Complainant’s mother then submitted she wanted justice.  

The Complainant’s father when asked said he wanted compensation.

The Restorative Practice meeting 7 December 2023

It is not in dispute that there were allegations of bullying made by the Complainant which were investigated by the school in line with their procedures.  It appears there were allegations of bullying and counter allegations of bullying.  I note the Complainant wanted an apology and there was no apology forthcoming as the allegations were denied.  I note there was no resolution reached at the Restorative Practice meeting and the meeting ended at an impasse.  It is not in dispute the Complainant was upset. 

Notwithstanding, I have two versions of events before me that are entirely odds in regard to what took place at this meeting.  I cannot reconcile the two accounts with each side flatly contradicting the other and there is no corroborating evidence put before me.               

It is notable that the friend/s who accompanied the Complainant to this meeting did not come forward to corroborate the Complainant’s version of events.  Having reviewed all the documents submitted by the Complainant and her parents in advance of hearing there is no reference whatsoever to these potential witnesses.  I note the onus is on the Complainant to present her case including corroborative evidence.              

Upon enquiry at hearing the Complainant submitted her friends “did not want to get involved.”     

I note there were two teachers present at the meeting – one of whom was present in her capacity as a witness and the other was the Guidance Counsellor who had received the relevant training.  I note the Guidance Counsellor did not attend at hearing as she is on maternity leave and had just recently given birth the week prior to hearing. 

I am of the view it would be unreasonable by any standards to expect that the Guidance Counsellor would attend.          

It is not in dispute that what followed the meeting on 7 December 2023 was a series of emails from the Complainant’s parents to the school principal in which a number of allegations were made about some of the teachers. 

It is not in dispute that following on from that Restorative Practice meeting on 7 December the Complainant refused to engage with the school principal and a number of other teachers in the school unless her parents were present.

It is reasonable to conclude that this was an untenable situation for the school to find itself in and the Principal called a meeting with the Complainant’s parents scheduled for 19 December 2023 to discuss this situation.   

Meeting on 19 December 2023

I am satisfied that reference was made at that meeting to adherence with the school’s Admissions Policy and Code of Behaviour both of which I note upon inquiry the Complainant’s father stated he had not read.  I note the Complainant’s mother stated she had read both. 

I am satisfied it was reasonable that any school principal in a school of almost 400 students might convey to the parents of any child that if they were not prepared to adhere to the Admissions Policy and / or the Code of Behaviour that they had signed up to or agreed to when they had enrolled their child, or in this case four children, then they would have to remove their children. 

I do not see that the Complainant’s parents were treated any differently than any other parents would have been in the same circumstances.  I have observed the Complainant’s parents have shown a remarkable lack of insight into the untenable and frankly quite bizarre situation that had developed in circumstances where their children refused to engage with teachers in the school who, in their capacity as teachers, were acting in loco parentis whilst the children were in school.    

For completeness, whether or not the Complainant’s parents instructed the Complainant and her siblings in this regard is immaterial to these findings and I only make reference to this because of the inconsistencies in the evidence in this regard which I had endeavoured to probe at hearing with the Complainant.  Nothing turns on this. 

The fact remains the children refused to engage with the Principal of the school and with the teachers of the school unless their parents were present.    

It is not in dispute that the Complainant’s mother left the office during the meeting on 19 December and it is not in dispute that an incident took place in the foyer of the school which lasted almost an hour.  I accept there was noise and it was at a level that it could he heard up two flights of stairs.  I accept the incident was such that students had to be diverted away from the area.  I do not find it necessary to get caught up in the semantics of the words used to describe this incident.    

Suffice it to say there was an incident.  It took place in the public foyer of the school during school hours.  It was noisy.  It was disruptive.  None of this is disputed.    

It would appear from the evidence adduced that the Complainant’s mother was in great distress which the Complainant’s father insisted his children remain to witness despite entreaties from teachers that they be removed from the area. 

Whatever it was that went on in the foyer of the school that day for almost an hour was of such magnitude that it caused not only distress among the teaching population of the school but it raised significant concerns for the children. 

It is noted the teachers had sought to protect them from witnessing this incident to be met with the Complainant’s father’s insistence that they (the children) should see their mother suffer. 

After this incident which was witnessed by a number of teachers I accept it was incumbent on the school Principal, in accordance with his statutory duty, as the Designated Liaison Person for child protection in the school to seek advice from TUSLA which he duly did that afternoon following expressions of disquiet from teachers who had been upset at this turn of events that took place in a public area in the school and witnessed by the children at their father’s insistence.    

This TUSLA referral is what this case is all about.  This has been established in direct evidence by the Complainant’s parents and I am satisfied the filing of the within complaint with the WRC is the mechanism through which the Complainant’s parents sought to have the TUSLA referral withdrawn albeit they were notified at the outset of hearing that this remedy was not within the remit of the WRC. 

TUSLA Referral

The Complainant and her parents in their complaints claim the making of this referral to TUSLA was discriminatory on the grounds of religion. 

The Children First Act 2015 provides as follows:

14. (1) Subject to subsections (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7), where a mandated person knows, believes or has reasonable grounds to suspect, on the basis of information that he or she has received, acquired or becomes aware of in the course of his or her employment or profession as such a mandated person, that a child—

(a) has been harmed,

(b) is being harmed, or

(c) is at risk of being harmed,

he or she shall, as soon as practicable, report that knowledge, belief or suspicion, as the case may be, to the Agency.

Section 14 of the impleaded Act provides as follows:

Certain measures or activities not prohibited.

14.—(1) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting—

(a) the taking of any action that is required by or under—

(i) any enactment or order of a court,

(ii) any act done or measure adopted by the European Union, by the European Communities or institutions thereof or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the European Communities, or

(iii) any convention or other instrument imposing an international obligation on the State,

Having applied the law to the facts as set out in detail above I find the Respondent is entitled to rely on section 14 of the Act. 

The School Graduation 

I fully accept the Complainant wanted to deliver the head girl speech and sing a song at the graduation.  I fully accept she was very disappointed when told she had to choose one or the other.  I note it was accepted and indeed confirmed at hearing that no participant in the graduation performed two activities but, nonetheless, the Complainant wanted to perform two activities.     

I note the Complainant’s father presented himself at the school with his daughter seeking to see the Principal because his daughter was so upset at not getting to do the two activities she wanted to do.  

I am satisfied no facts have been presented to me that establish that the Complainant was treated less favourably than a person of a different religion or no religion.  I am satisfied no facts have been presented to me that establish that the Complainant was treated less favourably than a person of a different race. 

On the basis of the facts as presented the Complainant was treated in exactly the same manner as all the sixth-year students and she herself confirmed in evidence that no participant in the graduation ceremony performed two activities.   

Prima facie case

There are two components to a valid prima facie case.  The first component of a valid prima facie case is the requirement to identify a comparator who received more favourable treatment than the Complainant did. 

The second component of a valid prima facie case is that the Complainant is required to establish the facts from which less favourable treatment could be inferred.  The Labour Court has held consistently that the facts from which the occurrence of discrimination may be inferred must be of “sufficient significance” before a prima facie case is established and the burden of proof shifts to the respondent. 

The Complainant did not proffer any evidence to show that the treatment she was subjected to was less favourable than the treatment afforded to a comparator, actual or hypothetical, who does not have the characteristic relied upon. 

The Complainant is making general allegations that she was treated less favourably because of her race and/or religion, without any specific evidence to support these assertions.  This does not meet the very first requirement for a complaint of discrimination to be established, that a complainant must show that a comparator of a different race and/or religion was treated more favourably.

In the instant case, the Complainant made a number of allegations relating to the behaviour of the Respondent. However, I am not satisfied that I have been presented with evidence from which I could reasonably conclude that the Complainant was discriminated against by the Respondent on the ground of race and / or religion.  I have no evidence before me to suggest any of the interactions between the school, the Complainant and her parents are linked in any way to race, religion or family status (albeit not canvassed at hearing). 

The evidence before me does not support that which is alleged.  The Complainant has failed to identify facts of sufficient significance to give rise to an inference of discrimination.  Furthermore, I find the allegations made are not substantiated or borne out by the facts. 

I consider it significant that when I sought to reconcile the allegations made against the school with the fact that the Complainant’s siblings remain pupils in the school with another sibling enrolled for September, the Complainant’s mother took exception when I inquired about this at hearing in order to examine the surrounding circumstances in a situation such as this where there is such conflict in the evidence adduced.      

After careful consideration of the facts of this case as set out in the Complainant’s submission by way of the ES1 form and the statements provide by the Complainants; the Respondent’s submissions; and the evidence adduced at hearing I find, on balance, that the Complainant has not disclosed a prima facie case under the Act as is required and has failed to outline a comparator to demonstrate how she believes he has been treated less favourably under the grounds cited.  As such, the burden does not shift to the Respondent in this instance.

Victimisation

The Complainant’s father submits in direct evidence at hearing that the TUSLA referral was an act of victimisation. 

Victimisation is a stand-alone cause of action which requires specific proofs in that there must be evidence that the alleged adverse treatment occurred as a reaction to any of the situations listed above at section 3(2)(j) of the Act. 

I must decide in the first instance whether or not the Complainant took an action that could be regarded as a “protected act” within the meaning of section 3(2)(j) of the Act.  It is clear from the wording of “victimisation” in the Act that a complaint of victimisation must relate to a complaint under the Act and not a general complaint of victimisation. 

The date of the TUSLA referral was 20 December 2023.  The ES1 notification is dated 23 May 2024.  I find as fact that what could be held to be considered a “protected act” within the meaning of section 3(2)(j) of the Act, which is the ES1 notification, post-dates the TUSLA referral by almost five months. 

The alleged victimisation to which a complainant was subjected must have a nexus with an action to assert equality rights in order to be admissible as such a claim.  There must be adverse treatment that occurred as a reaction to the “protected act.”   

In order to ground a claim for victimisation the protected act has to occur first in time and the alleged victimisation / adverse treatment follows.    

For the reasons set out above, I find the Complainant was not victimised by the Respondent in contravention of the Act. 

Harassment

The Complainant did not engage with or pursue this element of her complaint.  The Complainant did not put any evidence before me to support this element of her complaint.   I note the Complainant’s father in evidence submits the Restorative Practice meeting was harassment and an abuse of power without reference to any nexus with the impleaded Act. 

Having regard to the evidence before me I find the Complainant has not presented any evidence from which I could reasonably conclude that she has been subjected to harassment on the grounds of either her race or her religion contrary to section 11 of the Act. 

I find that the Complainant was not discriminated against, and the Respondent did not engage in prohibited conduct. The allegation of discrimination is a very serious one and the evidence must meet a threshold where it can be said on the balance of probabilities the Complainant was treated less favourably because of her race and/or her religion and/or her family status. 

It is my view that what started out as an attempt by the Complainant’s parents to get the TUSLA report withdrawn, has, with no basis in fact, been converted into a number of allegations of discrimination which by any reasonable standard and on balance fail to raise a presumption of discrimination on grounds of race, religion, family status or victimisation or harassment. 

The oral and documentary evidence presented in relation to three case files across two days was comprehensive and detailed.  In coming to my decision, I have carefully reviewed and fully considered the totality of the evidence tendered and the submissions of the parties.  I have set out in this written decision a summary of the oral evidence tendered by each witness.  I have included in the findings section relevant facts and evidence grounding my decision which is set out hereunder. 

CA-00064427-001

For the reasons set out above I decide as follows:

The Complainant has failed to establish a presumption of discrimination on the grounds of race;

The Complainant has failed to establish a presumption of discrimination on the grounds of religion;

The Complainant has failed to establish a presumption of discrimination on the grounds of family status;

The Complainant has failed to establish victimisation contrary to section 3(2)(j) of the Act;

The Complainant has failed to establish a presumption of harassment by the Respondent contrary to section 11 of the Act.

Accordingly, I decide this complaint is not well-founded.

Race; religion; family status; victimisation; harassment;