Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Child

A Shop

Representatives

Rachel O’Byrne BL instructed by Karan Ahluwalia FLAC - Free Legal Advice Centre

Dominic Wilkinson BL instructed by Paula Walshe Arag Legal Protection Limited

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00071929-001

27/05/2025

The Complainant, a 12‑year‑old girl of Roma ethnicity, alleged that on 30 November 2024 she was discriminated against and harassed on the ground of race when she was followed, verbally abused, and physically removed from the Respondent’s shop by security staff without justification. She contended that she was singled out because of her ethnicity and that the incident caused her distress and ongoing anxiety when entering shops.

The complaint arises from an incident on 30 November 2024 when the Complainant entered the Respondent’s retail premises, with her sister and two friends. The group, who were identifiable as members of the Roma community, entered the store to purchase items. Shortly after entering, they were observed and followed by a security guard.

The Complainant stated that when she briefly separated from her friends and entered another aisle, the security guard approached her and, without any prior interaction or justification, told her in aggressive and abusive language to leave the shop. She responded that she was entitled to be there. The situation escalated when the security guard aggressively ushered her through the store. A second security guard became involved. The Complainant was subjected to verbal abuse, intimidation and physical handling. She was pushed and ultimately physically removed from the premises. She was also filmed by the security guards during the incident.

The Complainant stated that she had done nothing to warrant this treatment and that no other customers were treated in a similar manner. It was asserted that she was singled out because of her Roma ethnicity. The manner in which she was treated, including being followed, addressed aggressively, physically handled and removed, was said to constitute both less favourable treatment and harassment within the meaning of the Acts.

The Complainant further stated that the conduct had a significant impact on her. She described in her evidence ongoing fear when entering shops, particularly where security staff are present, and stated that she continued to suffer distress and anxiety arising from the incident.

It was also highlighted that in advance of the hearing, the Complainant’s legal team sought disclosure of CCTV footage and other documentation. While some footage was provided, the Respondent did not furnish footage from the aisle in which the initial interaction took place, stating that the camera was incorrectly positioned. The Complainant’s legal representative stated that this missing material is central to the case and that appropriate adverse inferences should be drawn from its absence.

The Respondent did not present any witnesses. In legal argument, it was disputed that the Complainant is of the Roma race and stated that she is Irish, having been born in Ireland and holding an Irish passport.

The Respondent also asserted that the Complainant failed to identify a valid comparator or demonstrate that she was treated less favourably than a person of a different race or gender in a similar situation.

The Respondent’s representative also disputed any suggestion of procedural failings or non-cooperation, stating that they engaged with the process and provided all available CCTV footage.

Discrimination is defined in section 3 of the Act as less favourable treatment on grounds of one or more of the discriminatory grounds. The ground cited in this case is race.

Section 26 of the Act  allows inferences to be drawn from a Respondent's failure to provide "material information "("Material information" includes reasons for any act or omission, relevant practices or procedures) and information about comparators. sought under section 21(2)(b) of the Equal Status Act, where it provides: 

“If, in the course of an investigation under section 25, it appears to the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission— 

(a) that the respondent did not reply to a notification under section 21(2)(a) or to any question asked by the complainant under section 21(2)(b), 

(b) that the information supplied by the respondent in response to the notification or any such question was false or misleading, or 

(c) that the information supplied in response to any such question was not such as would assist the complainant in deciding whether to refer the case to the  Director of the Workplace Relations Commission, 

The Director of the Workplace Relations Commission may draw such inferences, if any, as seem appropriate from the failure to reply or, as the case may be, the supply of information as mentioned in paragraph (b) or (c). 

In relation to harassment, section 11 of the Act provides: 

 (1) A person shall not sexually harass or harass (within the meaning of subsection (4) or (5)) 

another person (“the victim”) where the victim— 

5 

( 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) … 

( c) … 

(2) A person (“the responsible person”) who is responsible for the operation of any place that is 

an educational establishment or at which goods, services or accommodation facilities are offered to 

the public shall not permit another person who has a right to be present in or to avail himself or 

herself of any facilities, goods or services provided at that place, to suffer sexual harassment or 

harassment at that place. 

(3) It shall be a defence for the responsible person to prove that he or she took such steps as are 

reasonably practicable to prevent the sexual harassment or harassment, as the case may be, of 

the other person referred to in subsection (2) or of a category of persons of which that other 

person is a member. 

(4) … 

(5) ( a ) In this section — 

(i) references to harassment are to any form of unwanted conduct related to any of the 

discriminatory grounds, and 

(ii) … 

being conduct which in either case has the purpose or effect of violating a person ’ s dignity and 

creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the person. 

( b ) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a) , such unwanted conduct may consist 

of acts, requests, spoken words, gestures or the production, display or circulation of written 

words, pictures or other material. 

Findings in respect of whether or not the Complainant was a member of the Roma community: 

A central issue in dispute concerned the complainant’s ethnic identity. The Respondent asserted that the Complainant was Irish on the basis that she was born in Ireland. I do not accept that assertion. Place of birth does not preclude a person from belonging to a particular ethnic group or race, and the two are not mutually exclusive. 

I accept as credible and consistent the Complainant’s evidence that she is of Roma ethnicity. Her self-identification was clear and was not undermined in the course of the evidence. In addition, I note that she entered the Respondent’s premises in the company of a friend who was wearing clothing readily identifiable as traditional Roma dress. This is a significant contextual factor in assessing how the group would have been perceived. 

In those circumstances, I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Complainant is a member of the Roma community. In any event, and in the alternative, I am satisfied that she was perceived as being of Roma ethnicity, or as being associated with persons of Roma ethnicity, at the material time. 

Accordingly, I am satisfied that the Complainant, as a member of the Roma community, falls within a protected ground, namely the race ground, under the Act.  

Findings in respect of the CCTV footage 

The Respondent did not supply the full CCTV footage from the relevant area of the premises. Only partial footage was provided, and no witness was called to explain the omission. Section 26 of the Acts permits me to “…draw such inferences, if any, as seem appropriate from the failure to reply or, as the case may be, the supply of information as mentioned in paragraph (b) or (c).The missing footage was directly relevant to the central events in dispute and was at all material times within the exclusive control of the Respondent. I draw an adverse inference from its non-disclosure and this inference supports the Complainant’s account.

Findings in respect of the substantive complaint: 

I am satisfied that the Complainant was treated in a manner that was markedly different from other customers. She was followed upon entry, approached without explanation, addressed in aggressive and inappropriate terms, and physically removed from the premises.

While the Respondent submitted that no specific comparator was identified, I am satisfied that this is not fatal to the claim. The Act does not require the identification of an actual comparator where the circumstances permit a reliable inference to be drawn.

In this case, the appropriate comparator is a hypothetical customer, not perceived to be of Roma ethnicity, entering the premises in similar circumstances. There was no evidence presented to suggest that such a customer would have been followed immediately upon entry, addressed in an aggressive manner without prior interaction, or physically removed from the premises in the absence of any identified wrongdoing.

The Complainant was singled out for adverse treatment, and in the absence of any objective or non-discriminatory explanation, I am satisfied that she was treated less favourably than such a hypothetical comparator.

Turning to the issue of harassment, I am satisfied that the conduct described, including the use of abusive language, the physical handling of a minor, the intimidating behaviour of the security personnel, constitutes unwanted conduct related to a discriminatory ground. The conduct had the effect of violating the Complainant’s dignity and creating an intimidating and humiliating environment. I therefore find that the Complainant was subjected to harassment within the meaning of the Act. 

Considering all of the foregoing, I find that the Complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination on the ground of race in the provision of services, that the Respondent has failed to rebut that case, and that the treatment to which the Complainant was subjected constituted harassment within the meaning of section 11 of the Act.  

Accordingly, I find that the Respondent has engaged in prohibited conduct under the Act. 

I find that the Respondent has engaged in prohibited conduct under the Act for the reasons set out above. 

Section 27(1)(a) of the Equal Status Acts empowers an Adjudication Officer to award compensation for the effects of prohibited conduct.

Having considered all of the circumstances, I am conscious that the aggravating features in this case — the treatment of a child, the use of physical force, the absence of any apology or acknowledgement, and the failure to furnish relevant CCTV footage — are significant and would, in an appropriate case, justify a substantially higher award. However, I must calibrate the award to the effects actually established in evidence. This was a single incident. No medical or psychological evidence was adduced to demonstrate ongoing or clinically significant harm, and while I fully accept the Complainant's account of distress and ongoing anxiety in retail settings, the absence of such evidence is a relevant limiting factor in assessing the duration and extent of those effects.

Balancing the gravity of the conduct against the effects as established, I am satisfied that an award of €3,000 is proportionate and appropriate. It reflects the seriousness of the infringement of the Complainant's rights while remaining grounded in the evidence before me.