EDA2563

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00028716 (CA-00038420-001)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the decision of the WRC Adjudication Officer under Section 83 (1), Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2015 on 6 January 2024. Labour Court hearings took place on 6 August 2025.

The following is the Determination of the Court:

DECISION:

1Background to the Appeal

 This is an appeal by Claire Conlon (the Complainant) against Adjudication Officer’s Decision ADJ-000287167 CA-00038420-001 given under the Employment Equality Act’s 1998 to 2011 (the Act’s) in a claim against North Leinster Citizens Information Service (the Respondent) that she was discriminated on the disability ground when she applied for a position. The Adjudication Officer held that the complaint was not well founded.

The complaint was lodged with the WRC on 25 June 2020 and appealed to the Labour Court 6 January 2024.  The reckonable period for the purpose of the Act is 26 December 2019 to 25 June 2020. The Complainant identified for the Court that she required a reasonable accommodation in respect of the hearing and that she was requesting that the case proceed by way of submission only. Following engagement with the Respondent and taking into account the information provided by the Complainant to the Court and the provisions of s47(3) and (4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, the Court informed both parties that it would proceed by way of written submission only. A division of the Court met on Wednesday 6th August 2025 to consider the submissions of both parties.

2 Summary of Complainant’s submission

 The Complaint attached to her appeal form a letter setting out the details of her complaint. A submission was received on 5 March 2024 in line with the Courts requirements and on 3 February 2025 a copy of documents that were submitted to the WRC were received. On 10 February 2025 a supplementary submission was received form the Complainant. The Complainant sent copies of these documents to the Respondent.

The Complainant submitted that she applied for a position with the Respondent in County Louth and only that position. She did not receive notification of the interview on 11 March 2020 and only became aware of same when she received an email on 10 March 2020 asking if she would be attending for interview on 11 March 2020 in Mullingar Citizens Information Centre. The email referenced a letter of 28 February 2020 that was supposed to have issued to her.

The Complainant responded immediately at 13.31 by email, stating that she had not received the letter but would definitely attend for interview and requesting that the letter be forwarded to her by email. The Respondent replied by email at 13.59 including the letter and asking the Complainant to confirm her postal address.  The Complainant replied by email at 14.03 confirming the address was correct and that she would definitely attend for interview the next day.

The Complainant emailed at 17.17 advising that she had some concerns regarding some parts of the interview and looked for some clarification, and at 18.06 emailed to say that she did not think it was practical for her to attend the interview the next day. She indicated that she would need more time to prepare, and that Mullingar was very far away to attend for an interview for a job based in Louth. In that email she identified that she had a disability and would require more supports in order to attend the interview. She went on to ask if the Respondent was in a position to offer supports.

On the morning of the interview the Complainant received a call from the Respondent offering a later time sloth for the interview on the following day. The Complainant following that phone call emailed to confirm that she had a diagnosis of Aspergers and not receiving the letter had overwhelmed her. She went on to say it was not appropriate for her to attend for interview in Mullingar as it was too far away. She confirmed that she would need a more predicable environment in order to be at ease and communicate best.

The Complainant received a letter from the Respondent dated 18 March 2020, which she did not find helpful and emailed the Respondent to say that she was dissatisfied with how she had been treated. The Complainant submitted that the reasonable accommodation she required was that the interview would be held in Louth. The Employer is obliged to provide reasonable accommodation and, in this case, had failed to do so.   While they had offered her a later interview slot the next day this was not what she was requesting, she was requesting a change of location. The Complainant in her submission stated that she would be happy to drop the case in exchange for a chance to prove her skills and abilities within the organisation. It was her submission that by failing to provide the accommodation that she required, the Respondent had discriminated against her contrary to the Act.

3 Summary of Respondents submission

 The Respondents submission was received on 10 February 2025 and was also sent to the Complainant. The Respondent submitted that letters were sent to all candidate that were shortlisted including the Complainant on 27/28 February 2020. On 10 March 2020 all candidates that had not confirmed attendance at interview were emailed and asked to confirm their attendance. It was at that stage they became aware that the Complainant had not received the letter that had issued but she confirmed she would attend.  A copy of the letter that had issued was emailed to the Complainant and the Complainant indicated in two separate emails that she would attend. Interviews started the next day and were running for two days.

During a break on day one of the interviews, one of the interviewers noticed a missed call on her mobile. There was a voicemail from the Complainant but when she returned the call there was no answer. The interviewer left a voice mail to say that she was returning her call, and that she was interviewing. It was at this point that the Complainant sent an email setting out that she has Aspergers and required support.  The Respondent phoned the Complainant and asked her if she was happy to discuss and offered to push her interview back to the second day to provide her with more time to prepare.  She explained the format of the interview and the purpose of same. The Complainant focused on the location of the interview and declined to attend where the interviews were taking place. It was explained to the Complainant that they were filling posts for a number of areas and that the Respondent is a regional company covering a number of counties.

 The application form completed by the Complainant indicated that there were vacancies in a number of areas and did not specify where the interviews would be help. It also indicated that informal queries could be made to a dedicated email address. The Respondent only became aware of the Complainants disability on the day of the interviews, and did its best to provide reasonable accommodation by offering an alternative interview slot on the last day of interview to allow more preparation time. It was not practical or reasonable to move the interview to an alternative location.

 It is the Respondent’s submission that it did not discriminate against the Complainant on disability or any other ground. The Complainant has not established a prima facia case, nor has she identified a comparator and therefore her complaint must fail.

4 Relevant Law

Section 85A sets out the burden of proof as follows

(1) Where in any proceeding’s facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination 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 a complainant.

(3) Where, in any proceedings arising from a reference of a matter by the Authority to the F159[Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission] under section 85(1), facts are established by or on behalf of the Authority from which it may be presumed that an action or a failure mentioned in a paragraph of that provision has occurred, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.

(4) In this section "discrimination" includes—

(a) indirect discrimination,

(b) victimisation,

(c) harassment or sexual harassment,

(d) the inclusion in a collective agreement to which section 9 applies of a provision which, by virtue of that section, is null and void.

(5) The European Communities (Burden of Proof in Gender Discrimination Cases) Regulations 2001 (S.I. No. 337 of 2001), in so far as they relate to proceedings under this Act, are revoked.

6 Discussion and Decision

 The following facts in this case are not in dispute.  The Complainant in her complaint form to the WRC identifies the first and last act of discrimination as occurring on the 16 March 2020. The interviews took place on 11 and 12 March 2020. The Complainant did not identify a comparator in her submissions.  The Complainant on two occasions on 10 March when she became aware of the interview confirmed her attendance and made no mention of the location being an issue. The Respondent only became aware of the Complainants disability and the fact that she was seeking that the interview would take place in Co Louth on the 11 March the date the interview was scheduled to take place. The Respondent offered an alternative time slot on the following day 12 March 2020 and indicated that the location could not be changed, but the Complainant declined same.

Section 85A of the Act requires that in order for the burden of proof to shift to the Respondent the Complainant must establish facts from which it may be presumed that discrimination may have occurred. Based on the submissions before the Court the Complainant has not established such facts. At the time the interviews were scheduled the Respondent was not aware that the Complainant had a disability not were they aware that she may have an issue with the location of the interviews.  They were only provided with this information on the day the interview was originally scheduled to take place. The Court finds that it was not reasonable to expect the Respondent to relocate the interviews at that point in time. The Respondent did make an accommodation for the Complainant by moving her interview back a day to allow her more time to prepare. As the Complainant has not established a prima facia case of discrimination her complaint must fail.

The appeal fails. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld

 The Court so determines.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
FC	______________________
11 September 2025	Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Fiona Corcoran, Court Secretary.