Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Glenn Byrne

Graham O'Sullivan Graham O’ Sullivan Cafe

Representatives

Mrs Lynn Byrne

Mr Peter Nugent Solicitor  Peter Nugent & Co. Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00067302-001

11/11/2024

This matter came before the WRC dated 11/11/2024 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 28/04/2025.  

The specific complaint is one of discrimination against by a person, organisation/company who provides goods, services or facilities alleged to have taken place on two separate occasions namely 27 & 30 September 2024 by reason of disability and by reason of failure to provide reasonable accommodation as set out in the ES1 form.

The Complainant claims the Respondent treated him unlawfully by discriminating against him in the provision of goods/services and the failure to provide reasonable accommodation for his disability.

For completeness the date of the alleged acts is in fact 27 September and 01 October and not 30 September as alleged.  The date was amended on consent at hearing.   

The Respondent refutes the claim in its entirety.  

The Complainant relied on the narrative as set out in the ES1 form which was also used for the purposes of filing the complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission.  There is neither an electronic nor a manual complaint form.  Submissions by way of witness statements from the Complainant were filed with the WRC on 27/04/2025.  The aforesaid witnesses were in attendance at hearing.  The Respondent did not file written submissions and relied on diary pages submitted in advance and on CCTV footage on the day of hearing. 

The CCTV footage had been provided to the Complainant by the Respondent in advance of hearing. 

CA-00067302-001

Overview of ES1 form

The Complainant’s mother submits the organisational protocols of the Respondent are in her view discriminatory in nature and has caused a stop in her sons (the Complainant’s) daily visits to the Respondent Café.

It is submitted that following on from an incident in the café the Complainant who is aged 20 years of age with a diagnosis of Non-Verbal Autism and Moderate Learning Disability, the Complainant was asked to leave the café and staff had threatened to call the Gardai.  It is submitted the Complainant became stressed in the café and attempts to settle him by his carer were challenged by staff, the manageress and her team.  It is submitted the staff continuously approached the Complainant and his carer saying he (the Complainant) should not be allowed out, he should not have a lady carer, the Gardai should be called, he should not enter the café again he is not welcome in the café. 

The Complainant’s mother submits they were informed by management that this accommodation was not possible despite her efforts in explaining the Complainant’s disability and lack of understanding and capacity.  The Complainant’s mother submits the Complainant and his care team have visited the café many many times and enjoyed a pleasant lunch and often enjoyed with many other service users within the local community.  The Complainant’s mother submits they have visited the café for seven years and it was custom and practice that her son was afforded this particular accommodation. 

The Complainant’s mother submits that she explained to the lady in charge it was a certainty that the Complainant would want to revisit the café again as he is dependent on structure and routine and if not afforded the opportunity he (the Complainant) would become overwhelmed and dysregulated.  The Complainant’s mother submits the manager cited the fact that “we can’t have THAT in this café and he cannot come in here or we will ring the Gardai to remove the Complainant and his carer.”

The Complainant’s mother submits it is very disappointing that management of the Respondent café will not engage with them.  The Complainant’s mother submits despite her efforts in explaining that the Complainant is a non-verbal autistic man they were still instructed that was the policy and he would not be served.  The Complainant’s mother submits they were approached in the café and advised they were not comfortable with the Complainant being in there and they were forced to cancel their daily outings this week resulting in the Complainant becoming dysregulated, excluded and left at home.

The Complainant’s mother respectfully requests that the commission urge the Respondent café to review their protocols as a matter of priority as their family status is as equal to any other paying customer that wish to enjoy their goods and services.  The Complainant’s mother submits her son should able to afford the freedoms of equality as any other Irish citizen and today those freedoms were infringed upon.  The Complainant’s mother submits in her view upholding such a protocol is discriminatory in nature towards families of additional needs directly and indirectly trying to access the Respondent goods and services.  The Complainant submits a formal complaint has been sent to the Respondent.  The Complainant submits she feels a complaint is warranted to be brought before the Irish Human Rights Commission as their group members have been directly and indirectly discriminated against trying to access the services of the Respondent. 

Summary of direct evidence of the Complainant’s mother on oath

The Complainant’s mother submits her son is now 21 years old with non-verbal autism and learning disabilities.  The Complainant’s mother submits that when the Complainant entered the café on 27 September he became distressed, overwhelmed and upset.  The Complainant’s mother submits they were challenged by Anna, the manager and they were told they shouldn’t be out and they were not welcome despite being there loads of times before and that the Complainant shouldn’t be there and if he didn’t leave the Guards and security would be called.

The Complainant’s mother submits her son was frightened, upset and overwhelmed.  The Complainant’s mother submits the carer asked for a minute and she doesn’t feel reasonable accommodation was offered to the Complainant.  The Complainant’s mother submits the Complainant was not due to go until Monday or Tuesday the following week.  The Complainant’s mother submits that when they did go back there was another incident and before they got to sit down the manager came over and said, regarding the agreement, the Complainant is not allowed to approach the counter. 

The Complainant’s mother submits this is discriminatory and exclusionary because in the autism world he (the Complainant) has to approach the counter and pay because that is part of his routine. 

The Complainant’s mother submits he stopped going there in November because of the tension and because they said we can’t have him here he is not welcome and they gave him a box for his food.

Summary of cross-examination of Complainant’s mother

It is put to the Complainant’s mother that the Complainant became upset and threw two bottles of Pepsi one of which was flung behind the till and the other across the restaurant.  It is put to the Complainant’s mother that the manager Annabelle will say she never mentioned the Guards and that she will say she has known the Complainant for five years and that he had never been like this before. 

The Complainant’s mother accepts his visits to the café didn’t stop and he (the Complainant) had been there a few times after the first incident.  It is put to the Complainant’s mother that a plastic container was provided as the manager feared that the Complainant might throw the plate.  It is put to the Complainant that Annabelle will give evidence that will deny she ever said the Complainant would not be served and that she will evidence that she had said it might be better if he didn’t come up to the counter and she will give evidence that the meeting between her and the Complainant’s mother when she came to the café on the day of the incident was a cordial meeting.

Summary of direct evidence of Complainant witness Ms Michelle O’Malley (hereafter MO’M)  on oath

MO’M submits the Complainant became indecisive on that morning (27 September) and that he kept coming in and out and they got sausages and toast and that they went on to get a drink and that the Complainant did throw the bottle.  The witness submits that when they got to the till to pay the Complainant took out his bus pass to tap instead of his Revolut card and that he got overwhelmed and that he threw the second bottle of Pepsi then. 

The witness submits she has worked with the Complainant for three years and she is well able to support him.  The witness submits she asked for same space for the Complainant to regulate.  The witness submits a member of staff approached with a plastic container and that overwhelmed the Complainant.  The witness submits she rang the Complainant’s mother.  The witness submits the Complainant was very overwhelmed and the staff said they were going to call security but she rang the Complainant’s mother and she came and collected them. 

Summary of cross-examination of Complainant witness MO’M

The witness is asked if she accepts that it would be reasonable to say that if she couldn’t manage the Complainant they would call security for help and she responds that yes she appreciates that.  It is put to the witness that the Complainant wasn’t asked to leave was he to which she responds no.  It is put to the witness that if someone throwing bottles cannot be managed the restaurant have a duty of care to staff and to customers.  The witness is asked what did the staff member say when she brought the plastic container to which she replies it was so that he wouldn’t throw the plate.  It is put to the witness that it would be fair to say that any discrimination the Complainant received was positive discrimination. 

Summary of direct evidence of Complainant witness Mr Phil Marsden (hereafter PM) on affirmation

PM submits he always asks the Complainant where he would like to go when they are out and on that day he (the Complainant) pointed to the Respondent café.  The witness submits they went to the food counter and Annabelle (the manager) pointed to a table at the far end of the café.  The witness submits he said that he did not wish to discuss this now and that the Complainant would like to choose his food and they went ahead and made their food choices at the counter. 

Summary of cross-examination of PM

It is put to the witness that Annabelle the manager will give evidence that he (the witness) was quite aggressive with her to which he replies he wasn’t aggressive he was insistent on ordering their food at the counter and that he was taken aback that they would have been told to sit.  The witness submits he didn’t know anything about any agreement between the Complainant’s mother and the manager and that what had happened that day was only a one off.  The witness confirms the Complainant got to choose his food and he accepts the Complainant was accommodated.  The witness confirms he hand delivered the letter to the Respondent café on the same day. 

Summary of closing submission of Complainant

It is submitted by the Complainant’s mother that it is regretful this happened but she had to take this complaint. 

CA-00067302-001

Overview of diary entry Respondent manager 27/09/2024

The Complainant threw two bottles of Pepsi first in the kitchen where the Respondent manager thought something had fallen down in there and the second at the deli fridge.  The Complainant threw the second bottle at the deli fridge where the Respondent witness was and it hit her on the shoulder.  The Respondent witness submits she asked the carer if the Complainant was ok and she (the carer) said she had already called his mother.  It is submitted the Complainant’s mother came and they left the café.  The Respondent witness submits later that day the Complainant’s mother came and talked to her and she said her carer was upset and why did we need to call security. 

The Respondent submits they didn’t call security but just in case she couldn’t handle him they would call security to help.  It is submitted the Complainant’s mother told her (Respondent witness) that she was looking for a male carer but they couldn’t provide one.  It is submitted that next time the Complainant’s mother said she would tell the carer to sit somewhere with less customers and leave the Complainant at the table sitting on the chair while the carer will take his orders and she (the Complainant’s mother) agreed with that. 

Overview of diary entry Respondent manager 01/10/2024

“Customer who threw bottles came.  I advised the male carer what happened before that me and his mother had agreed that he will not come at the counter just the carer takes the order and let him sit at the table but he didn’t want to listen to me and he keeps saying “yeah yeah I will tell to the mother” and he went at the till he doesn’t want to pay attention to what I am saying.”  [sic]

Summary of direct evidence of Respondent witness Ms Annabelle Dromantis (hereafter AD) on oath

AD outlines that she has been here in Ireland for 6 years and she works to send money home to her children.  The witness outlines that she has worked in the Respondent café for 5 years and that she was appointed manager in May of last year.  The witness submits she knows the Complainant because she has seen him so many times in the café and they have many customers in the café with special needs.  The witness she initially heard a sound but she wasn’t paying attention and then when she was at the deli fridge a bottle of Pepsi hit her on the shoulder. 

The witness submits she saw the Complainant sitting at the table with his carer and the Complainant was shaking the carer’s arm and she went over and asked the carer if she was ok and if she could manage and if not they could call security for assistance.  AD submits the carer said its ok and that she was calling his mother.  The witness submits she brought over a plastic container for the food in case the Complainant would throw the plate.

The witness submits later in the day the Complainant’s mother came and said that her carer was upset and asked her why did she say she would call security.  The witness submits she didn’t call security but that she had been afraid the carer wasn’t able to manage the Complainant.  The witness submits the Complainant’s mother said she was looking for a male carer. 

The witness submits she never said the Complainant was being refused to come back to the café.  The witness submits she said to the Complainant’s mother maybe next time he comes in he could go somewhere where there are less customers.  The witness submits she made a note of everything in the diary the day the incident happened.  The witness submits it was agreed between her and the Complainant’s mother that the Complainant would sit somewhere there was less customers.  AD submits she never mentioned the Guards.

The witness submits she saw the Complainant when he came to the café on 01 October and she was happy to see he had a male carer.  The witness submits she said she would take their order and they could take a table but the carer just wouldn’t listen to her when she tried to explain what was agreed and he said he had spoked to the Complainant’s mother.  The witness submits that when they were going to the till to pay the carer said to her that he would see her later and that he came back with the letter. 

The witness submits the Complainant has visited the café since on 3 and 11 October and the 13 October was the last time she had seen the Complainant.

Summary of cross-examination Respondent witness AD undertaken by Complainant’s mother

The witness is asked if the note in the diary is an incident report to which she replies no it is just a note.  The witness is asked if her shoulder was injured to which she replies it was a bruise and is asked if she stayed off work to which she replies no it was a bruise she didn’t stay off work. 

The witness is asked if the Complainant did anything wrong on the day of the incident to which the witness replies he was flinging bottles and what if he had hit her or anyone in the head.  It is put to the witness that we are not talking about what ifs.  When the witness is asked about security she submits she was worried as she looked at the size of the Complainant and the size of the carer and she was worried and she thought maybe security would be able to help.  It is put to the witness that she is not his carer.

It is put to the witness that when she (the Complainant’s mother) came in to the café later that day she asked her (the witness) if she was ok which the witness denies and the witness submits it was agreed between them that the Complainant would sit at the table beside the waterfall.  The Complainant’s mother puts it to the witness that the Complainant would still have to go to the till and that wasn’t agreed. 

Summary of closing submission of Respondent

The Respondent submits it is their case that the Complainant was able to return to the café and he did.  The Respondent submits that any discrimination was positive and that any other person who threw two bottles of Pepsi across a restaurant would have been leaving with the Gardai. 

CA-00067302-001

In conducting my investigation, I have reviewed the relevant documents submitted by the parties.  I have carefully considered the oral evidence adduced at hearing.  I have carefully considered the content of the CCTV footage.  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. 

I have two versions of events before me that are entirely at odds in most respects having regard to what was said and what was agreed between the parties when the Complainant’s mother returned to the café and spoke to the manager the day of the incident.  

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. 

In fulfilment of my duties under statute I am obliged to make all relevant inquiries into this complaint including an inquiry into and consideration of the surrounding circumstances.  Irrespective of the conflicts in evidence on certain matters, there is no conflict whatsoever in the crucial evidence as to the manner in which events unfolded when the Complainant and his carer visited the Respondent café on 27/09/2024 as seen on CCTV footage. 

The Relevant Law

The Equal Status Act 2000-2015 (the “ESA”) 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 ESA as follows:

Discrimination (general).

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.

The Complainant has submitted his complaint on grounds of disability and the failure to provide reasonable accommodation.  It is not in dispute that the Complainant has a disability within the meaning of Section 2 of the ESA.    I am satisfied the Respondent is providing a service within the meaning of the ESA.    

Section 5 of the ESA 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.”

The Burden of Proof

Section 38A of the ESA 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.

Section 38A of the Acts sets out the burden of proof which applies to a claim of discrimination under the Equal Status Acts and requires the Complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts from which the discrimination alleged may be inferred.  It is only where such a prima facie case of discrimination has been established that the onus shifts to the Respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination raised.  Accordingly, the Complainant must first establish a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment and it is only when a prima facie case has been established that the burden of proof shifts to the respondent to rebut the presumption of discrimination.

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 him.   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.”

It is well established that unsubstantiated beliefs or assertions that discrimination has occurred are not sufficient to establish a prima facie case.

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

Section 3(1) of the ESA gives meaning to ‘discrimination' in general across a broad range of grounds and provides that discrimination shall be taken to occur “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)...” 

Section 3(2)(g) defines the discriminatory ground of ‘disability’ as arising in circumstances when as between any two persons “…one is a person with a disability and the other either is not or is a person with a different disability (the “disability ground”)”. 

Section 4 of the ESA sets out the obligations on providers of a service to reasonably accommodate persons with a disability and provides as follows:

“4(1) For the purposes of this Act discrimination includes a refusal or failure by the provider of a service to do all that is reasonable to accommodate the needs of a person with a disability by providing special treatment or facilities, if without such special treatment or facilities it would be impossible or unduly difficult for the person to avail himself or herself of the service. 

(2) A refusal or failure to provide the special treatment or facilities to which subsection (1) refers shall not be deemed reasonable unless such provision would give rise to a cost, other than a nominal cost, to the provider of the service in question. 

(3) A refusal or failure to provide the special treatment or facilities to which subsection (1) refers does not constitute discrimination if, by virtue of another provision of this Act, a refusal or failure to provide the service in question to that person would not constitute discrimination. 

(4) Where a person has a disability that, in the circumstances, could cause harm to the person or to others, treating the person differently to the extent reasonably necessary to prevent such harm does not constitute discrimination.” [emphasis added] 

In the matter of Kim Cahill v. Department of Education and Science  2017 IESC 29, McMenamin J held as follows:

“The Circuit Court and High Court dealt with s.4(1) as a question of “reasonable accommodation”. That is not the test set by the words of the section. In fact, the section requires a respondent to do “all that is reasonable” to accommodate the needs of a person with a disability by providing special treatment or facilities, with the proviso that, if without such treatment or facilities, it would be impossible or unduly difficult for the person to avail himself or herself of the service.”

McMenamin J went on to state: -

“The purely legal question, however, is, how should the term “all that is reasonable” be interpreted? In general, the term ‘reasonable’ here has two aspects. First, it must contain a ‘substantial’, or proportional, component sometimes, as in s.4(2), involving consideration of the cost element…but, second, there must be a procedural aspect where the focus should be on the engagement between the process provider, and the recipient. These are objective tests.”

The Relevant Facts

It is common case the Complainant, accompanied by his carer, visited the Respondent café on  27/09/2024, as he had done on many occasions over a number of years.  There is no dispute as to the manner in which events evolved while the Complainant was at the self-service counter choosing his food and afterwards at the till while he was paying for his food.  The facts are set out above. 

What is in dispute is the content of the conversation that took place later on that day between the Complainant’s mother and the Respondent manageress Annabelle.    Notwithstanding what was said or not said, it is apparent the Respondent was happy to continue to welcome the Complainant to the café.  I am unable to accept the claims made by the Complainant’s mother that the Complainant was told that he was told he would not be served.  I am unable to accept the claims made that the Complainant was told he should not enter the café again as these claims are simply not borne out by the facts as the Complainant did visit the café again.      

I am satisfied there is no evidence put before me that suggests the Complainant was denied access to the café.  I am satisfied there was no refusal of service to the Complainant.  It is apparent the Respondent was happy to continue to welcome the Complainant to the café and there is no question that he was not allowed access to the café on the basis of the evidence adduced and borne out by the facts.   

I note it was the understanding of the Respondent manager that when the Complainant would come to the café again he would take his seat at a table near the waterfall and that his food would be served to him at the table.  This was not the Complainant’s mothers understanding.  I have considered the Complainant’s mother’s position at hearing that “in the autism world he has to approach the counter and pay because that is part of his routine.”  I have also considered the Respondent’s position that there is a duty of care owed to staff and to all its other customers. 

I find I cannot accept that the Complainant not being allowed go to the counter and pay is “discriminatory and exclusionary” as claimed by the Complainant when I consider the totality of the evidence and when I consider the content of the CCTV footage.  I am bound to consider the potential ramifications for customers and staff. 

Accordingly, in applying section 4(4) of the ESA as set out above I am unable to find the approach put forward by the Respondent to constitute discrimination when I consider all the circumstances of this case.    

It is not in dispute that the behaviour of the Complainant on the day of the incident was not his usual behaviour and neither his mother nor his carer on the day seemed able to identify what upset the Complainant that particular day.  Notwithstanding, I am satisfied the Respondent behaved reasonably in seeking to find an approach that worked and demonstrated a flexible and tailored response in what any reasonable person would view as a balancing exercise between the needs of the Complainant that he queue and pay at the counter on the one hand and the duty of care the Respondent has to its staff and to all other customers on the other hand.     

I find that the Complainant has not established a prima facie case discrimination on the ground of disability and/or of a failure to provide him with reasonable accommodation.   

Having engaged with and having carefully considered the totality of the evidence, I am satisfied that the section 4(4) provisions set out above apply in this case and I make this finding for the reasons set out above.   

CA-00067302-001

I decide that section 4(4) of the ESA applies and there was no discrimination.  Accordingly, I find this complaint to be not well-founded. 

Reasonable accommodation;