Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mark J.  Savage

Swords Specsavers Hearcare Limited

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00045345-001

25/07/2021

The Complainant states that he was discriminated against on the religious ground by the Respondent in January 2021. He is an Evangelical Christian. He did not believe in the pandemic therefore he states that to wear a mask to protect him or others from it would be a lie. That lie would cause him extreme distress. The Complainant must at all times “be a witness to the truth”. If he was to wear a mask it would be untruthful. On that basis he argues that he was exempt on the “reasonable grounds”. In that regards he is referring to mental distress. On 26th January 2021 he went into the Respondent store to make an appointment in relation to his eyes.  He was asked to wear a face mask. It was explained to him that it was store policy. He said that he did not want to wear one. He tried to explain that the law provided him with an exemption. He went to take out the statutory exemption to show the lady, but she got very upset. He licked his fingers to turn the page and she got even more upset saying he was spreading a dangerous disease. He wasn’t given the opportunity to show her the law he had taken with him. She then called store security. A young lady security officer came down to the store.  She asked him to come outside with her. He tried to explain to her that he was exempt. The security guard said he would have to leave. It was private property, and he was being asked to leave it. He tried to explain that it was not, it was a public place. When the Complainant refused to leave, someone then called the gardai. It was then that he decided to leave.

The Complainant accepted that he has a related complaint against Swords Specsavers Limited, ADJ 34363 in circumstances where he attended at their premises to make an appointment in relation to his eyes. It is accepted by the Complainant that he attended at this Respondent premises not to avail of their hearing services but to avail of their services in relation to his eyes. 

Both the within Respondent and Swords Specsavers Limited operate out of the same premises in a shopping centre in Swords. They are two entirely separate legal entities with separate company registration numbers. They both provide different services to members of the public. The Complainant attended at the Respondent premises in order to avail of the services provided by Swords Specsavers limited and not Swords Specsavers Hearcare limited. Therefore the named Respondent herein is a stranger to the claim made by the Complainant.

It is accepted by both the Complainant and the Respondent that on 21st January 2021 the Complainant attended at the Respondent premises to avail of a service provided by a different company operating out of the same premises, Swords Specsavers Limited. I note that the Complainant has a separate claim against Swords Specsavers Limited.  On that basis I find that this complaint is misconceived and accordingly I find that a prima facia case of discrimination against the within Respondent has not been establish. The complaint fails.

The complaint fails