Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Oxana  Farima

Longford and Westmeath Education and Training Board

Representatives

Self - Represented

William Hanly, O'Flynn Exhams LLP Solicitors

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00069976-001

13/03/2025

The Complainant is a Romanian national. She is a student in the QQI Level 6 Business Advanced programme at Longford College of Further Education. She states that her husband is also a student at the college. The Complainant states that during the previous academic year in 2024, she completed QQI Level 5 Business Administration and received distinctions in all her modules. The Complainant states that in July 2014, she underwent brain surgery to remove a right-sided cerebral cavernoma. She states that since then she has lived with a permanent neurological disability: left-side hemiparesis, permanent tremor, and the need to write only with one hand.

The Complainant states that on 7 February 2025, Teacher (HJ) announced that the Marketing exam would be held on 4 April 2025. The Complainant states that student A who is a Ukrainian nationality advised she could not attend because she had plane tickets booked. The Complainant asserted that HJ immediately changed A’s exam date to 3 April 2025. The Complainant states that this shows that exam dates could be changed when the college wished to do so.

The Complainant states that on 10 February 2025, she informed HJ that taking two exams on consecutive days was dangerous for her due to her medical condition (Spreadsheet on 2 April; Marketing on 3 April). She requested one rest day between exams. The Complainant states that HJ refused. The Complainant states that when she asked why the date was changed for A, she was told A had a hospital appointment, but later classmates confirmed to her that A was travelling to Spain.

The Complainant states that her husband submitted a complaint to management of the Respondent on 11 February with regard to the refusal to provide reasonable accommodation. She states that subsequently the Spreadsheet exam was moved from 2 April to 1 April 2025.

The Complainant states that on 11 February, HJ said to her “if you are so sick, this is not the right place for you”. The Complainant states that she was very upset by this remark.     

The Complainant states that on 13 February 2025, her Consultant Neurologist issued a medical letter confirming that she requires extra time in examinations and at least one full day of rest between examinations because stress for her can trigger neurological deterioration. 

The Complainant states that on 3 March, she was informed by the Respondent that 15 extra minutes per hour were approved by the college for the Complainant’s three exams.

The Complainant states that on 4 March while at class, she became unwell. She states that her classmate called an ambulance and she was transported to the local hospital. The Complainant states that at this time, her husband received an email from HJ as follows: “I hope Oxana is well and that she did not have to stay in hospital. All the staff in LCFE wish her the best”.  The Complainant states that this was misleading as she was hospitalized and received treatment.  The Complainant asserts that HJ is not a doctor and her message suggested that hospitalization was unnecessary. The Complainant states that this minimized her medical situation instead of supporting her.

The Respondent is concerned that the Complainant has based her claim on comments which she has misinterpreted, due to English not being her first language. It states that the Complainant in the within matter has set out two incidents which she has taken offence to with regard to how she was treated when she advised the Respondent of her condition; (i) she has detailed a communication on the 11 February, 2025 whereby it is stated that HJ stated “If you are so sick, this is not the right place for you” and (ii) she has referred to an email sent to her husband while she was in hospital which states: “I hope Oxana is well and that she did not have to stay in hospital”. The Respondent states that the first comment above was said to the Complainant in the spirit that she should take care of her health and not put any unnecessary pressure on herself and it was communicated in a caring way with the best of intentions. The Respondent states that the second comment in the email above is also communicated in a caring way and hoping that the Complainant was not suffering. The Respondent submits that as English is not the Complainant’s first language, unfortunately, the Complainant has misinterpreted the well wishes of the Respondent as being insulting and said in bad faith. The Respondent states that this is not the case and, in the circumstances, it is submitted that if the true meaning of these comments are explained to the Complainant and understood, she may appreciate that there is no injustice done to her and the complaint should proceed no further.

Background

The Complainant in the within matter enrolled in the Respondents QQI Level 6 Business Advanced programme in Sept 2024. Over the course of her studies, she completed examinations in QQI level 5 in May 2024 whereby she achieved excellent results. The issue the subject of this complaint relates to the exams held on 25 March 2025 in finance, 1 April 2025 in spreadsheets and 3 April 2025 in marketing.  The Complainant has set out how the exam dates for April 2025 were announced on 7 February, 2025. On this day, the Complainant’s husband asked if his wife’s exam dates, could be changed, as she did not want two exams scheduled on consecutive days. This request was not granted. The Complainant made a request to her teacher, HJ, on 10 February, 2025, raising a medical issue. This was the first occasion that the Complainant’s medical issue was raised in any way to the Respondent, despite the Complainant being a student with the Respondent since September 2024.

The Respondent states that the Complainant made requests of the college for exam dates to be moved, so they did not fall on consecutive days, and for reasonable accommodation to be afforded to her, to allow her extra time on her exams due to a disability.  In relation to the request for reasonable accommodation (extra time) the Respondent refers to the document “Learner Reasonable Accommodation in Assessment Procedure” provided in the written submissions, which sets out the guidelines to be adhered to by the Respondent in dealing with a request for reasonable accommodation.

The Respondent submits that the policy states “A Learner must submit the application and accompany such application with the relevant evidence/documentation.” The policy further states “Centre Manager/Co-Ordinator/Training Standards Officer must review and approve or reject depending on the professional evidence supplied”.  The Respondent asserts that this is significant as firstly, no relevant evidence of a medical nature was submitted when the Complainant raised an issue on 10 February. The Respondent states that the Complainant was emailed by CP on 10 February, 2025 requesting that a certificate be provided. The Respondent states that unfortunately, the Complainant was greatly upset by this email, but the email was sent in good faith and was clearly following procedure. The Complainant provided a medical letter outlining her condition to the college dated 13 February 2025. It was given to HJ by the Complainant’s husband after this date.

The Respondent states that on 28 February, 2025, the college received an application form for additional accommodation from the Complainant, detailing her medical condition.  The Respondent states that following receipt of same, the Complainant was awarded reasonable accommodation of 15 minutes per hour per exam. In relation to the request for her exams not to be fixed on consecutive dates, the Complainant made a request by email on 10 February, 2025. The Respondent states that this request was made after the dates for the exams were fixed and timetables of staff finalised in relation to this matter. The Respondent asserts that once the exam dates have been fixed, in general, the dates for exams are not changed. Dates are usually finalised at the beginning of February, when teachers know how many students are sitting exams and in what rooms and with the knowledge and availability of supervisors.

With regard to the Complainant’s assertion that an exam was moved to accommodate another student, named A; the Respondent maintains that this is not true. It states that a request was made by the said A on 14 January 2025 before the exam dates were finalised and published, to allow her to visit her mother in early April. The Respondent states that as no exam dates were set at that stage and the calendar was still in draft mode, no timetable was finalised, and it was no burden on the college to facilitate this request.

The Respondent states that the Complainant’s request for a date change was responded to on the day she made the request, advising that the timetable had been set and that normal procedure would be for exams to be scheduled on consecutive days, but that they may allow her to sit the exam when the repeat exams were being sat and that this was QQI Policy. The Respondent states that said email also set out how a request would still be made to allow a change of date and to facilitate her request going beyond normal practice and the procedure involved in respect of same. 

The Respondent states that on 11 February, 2025, (one day after her request) the Complainant was granted her request for exam date changes from 2 April to 1 April. This accommodation was made as an act of goodwill, despite it necessitating a significant revision of the exam timetable that affected the schedules of four teachers and their classes.  The Respondent further states that on 28 February, 2025, the college received an application form for additional accommodation from the Complainant, detailing her medical condition.  The Respondent states that following receipt of same, the Complainant was awarded reasonable accommodation of 15 minutes per hour per exam.  

The Respondent regrets that the Complainant had to attend hospital in March 2025. With regard to the issue of the message sent while she was in hospital, the Respondent submits the Complainant has misinterpreted the true meaning of the message. The Respondent has never denied the seriousness of the Complainant’s condition and accepts the condition as set out in events of 8 March, 2025.

The Respondent reiterates that the Complainant has not set out any action on the part of the college which might be deemed to be discrimination. The Complainant’s request for exams not to be fixed on consecutive dates was granted, as an act of goodwill, within 24 hours of her request. The Complainant’s request for reasonable accommodation was met immediately upon production of the supporting medical documentation. The Respondent states that it was not aware that the Complainant was suffering from any disability when her original request for her exams not to be on consecutive days was made, yet all efforts were made to oblige her and her request was facilitated.

The Respondent states that there has been no instance where the Complainant has been treated less favourably than another person and that no evidence of any discriminatory treatment has been established by the Complainant.

The issues for determination in the within complaint are (i) whether the Respondent discriminated against the Complainant on the disability ground contrary to the Equal Status Act 2000 (as amended) (the Act), in relation to the provision of a service and (ii) whether there was a failure by the Respondent to provide reasonable accommodation to Complainant. 

The preamble to the Equal Status Act 2000 (“the Act”) states that its purpose is,

…to promote equality and prohibit types of discrimination, harassment and related behaviour in connection with the provision of services, property and other opportunities to which the public generally or a section of the public has access.

Section 2 of the Equal Status Act 2000, as amended, (the Act) defines disability as follows:

“disability” means—

(a) the total or partial absence of a person’s bodily or mental functions, including the absence of a part of a person’s body,

(b) the presence in the body of organisms causing, or likely to cause, chronic disease or illness,

(c) the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of a person’s body,

(d) a condition or malfunction which results in a person learning differently from a person without the condition or malfunction, or

(e) a condition, disease or illness which affects a person’s thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgement or which results in disturbed behaviour;

The ‘Reasonable Accommodation’ provision at section 4 provides:  

(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) 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.

(3) 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.

The Burden of Proof provision at section 38A provides

(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.

I find that the Respondent is a service provider within the definition of the Act. I find that the Complainant has demonstrated that she has a disability within the meaning of the definition set out in the legislation.

Having carefully examined all the evidence adduced in the within claim, I find that the Complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination on grounds of disability for the following reasons.

The Complainant has asserted that she was subjected to discrimination and has set out two incidents (i) a communication on the 11 February, 2025 whereby the Complainant asserted that HJ stated to her “If you are so sick, this is not the right place for you” and (ii) she has referred to an email sent to her husband while she was in hospital which states: “I hope Oxana is well and that she did not have to stay in hospital”. The Complainant states that this was misleading as she was hospitalized and received treatment.  The Complainant asserts that HJ is not a doctor and her message suggested that hospitalization was unnecessary. The Complainant states that she took great offence and felt these remarks downplayed her medical situation instead of supporting her.

The Respondent states that the first comment above was said to the Complainant in the spirit that she should take care of her health and not put any unnecessary pressure on herself and it was communicated in a caring way with the best of intentions. The Respondent states that the second comment was also communicated compassionately and in a supportive way and hoping that the Complainant was not suffering.

Having heard the evidence at the hearing on this matter, I am satisfied that the comments made by HJ were made in a bona fide manner and in a caring and supportive way with the Complainant’s well being in mind.  In those circumstances, I find that the Complainant has not demonstrated that she was discriminated against on grounds of her disability. 

In relation to the Complainant’s assertion that an exam was moved to accommodate another student, named A; based on the evidence heard, I am satisfied that this request was made by A (in order to allow her to visit her mother in early April 2025) on 14 January 2025 before the exam dates were finalised and published. I accept the evidence of the Respondent wherein it was stated that as no exam dates were set at that stage and the calendar was still in draft mode, no timetable was finalised, accordingly it was no burden on the college to facilitate this request.  I find that the Complainant has not established that she was treated less favourably than A on grounds of disability.

I note that the Complainant’s request for exams not to be fixed on consecutive dates was granted, as an act of goodwill by the Respondent, within 24 hours of her request. I am also cognisant that the Complainant’s request for reasonable accommodation was met immediately upon production of the supporting medical documentation. In this regard, I note that on 28 February, 2025, the Respondent received an application form for additional accommodation from the Complainant, detailing her medical condition.  The Respondent states that following receipt of same, the Complainant was awarded reasonable accommodation of 15 minutes per hour per exam. In the circumstances I find that the Complainant has not established that she was subjected to discrimination on grounds of disability. I am satisfied that the Respondent upon receipt of medical documentation as is required pursuant to their procedures provided the Complainant with reasonable accommodation in the form of extra time to complete each exam.

In all of the circumstances of the within matter, I find that the Complainant was not discriminated against on the disability ground contrary to the Equal Status Act 2000, as amended.

I find that the Complainant was not discriminated against by the Respondent on the disability ground contrary to section 5 of the Equal Status Act 2000, as amended.

I find that the Complainant did not demonstrate that there was a failure by the Respondent to provide reasonable accommodation. Therefore, the Complainant’s case fails.

Equal Status Acts, discrimination on grounds of disability, reasonable accommodation