Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Volunteer

A Voluntary Organisation

Representatives

  Self-represented

 Self-represented

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00066764-001

17/10/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00066797-001

18/10/2024

The complainant Mr. E submits that he was subjected to discrimination and harassment on the grounds of gender when he was subjected to less favorable treatment and harassment by the respondent due his Transgender identity.  The complainant submits that he was also subjected to victimization by the respondent following the making of a complaint.  

The claim form also contained a claim on grounds of sexual orientation. The complainant at the hearing clarified that there was no claim on the grounds of sexual orientation.

I note that the Equal Status complaint was submitted by the complainant on 17th of October 2024.    The act of discrimination referred to in the claim form stems from a disclosure made to the complainant on 19th of April 2024 on which date the complainant Mr. E became aware that his Transgender Identity had been disclosed to the group without his knowledge in a Group Council meeting during which the complainant’s application to join the respondent organization as a volunteer was subjected to a vote based on his Transgender Identity.  It is further submitted that a discussion took place regarding which group the complainant could be assigned to, based on his Transgender Identity. 

The complainant submits that he only became aware of this on 19th of April 2024 and so he submits that it is from this date that he became aware that his application had been dealt with in a discriminatory manner. 

In addition, the complainant submits that once he became aware of the disclosure, he attributed certain past behaviors and treatment to the fact that the respondent was aware of his Transgender Identity which prior to this he had understood  to have been confidential and unknown to the group.

The complainant submits that  

 he was  discriminated against by the respondent when he applied to become a volunteer leader in the respondent  organisation as his application was subjected to a vote by the Group Council following the disclosure of his Transgender identity by a group leader Mr. D.

The complainant submits that the Chair of the meeting Mr. C  then called a vote to decide whether to accept the complainant’s application while attaching the condition that he not be allowed to lead younger groups due to his Transgender identity.

The complainant submits that  he only became aware of this on 19th of April 2024 when another leader disclosed it to him.

The complainant submits that he has lived as a male for more than 10 years and that it is only family and close friends who were aware of his having transitioned.

The complainant notified group leader Mr. D on 27th of April 2024 that he was aware of the disclosure and the vote which had taken place.

The complainant submits that he was also harassed and bullied by the respondent and that he only attributed the bullying and harassment to his Transgender identity  after being notified on the 19th of April 2024 that his Transgender identity had been known to the group since October 2022.

The complainant submits that he raised a complaint with the respondent safeguarding team on the 27th of  May 2024 an submitted and Equal Status notification to the respondent on 14th of June 2024.

The complainant submits that he was victimised by the respondent when he was asked not to attend any further meetings of the group until the investigation assessment had concluded.

The respondent submits that the complainant alleges discrimination and harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.  The issue arose from a Group Council meeting on 4 October 2022, where the complainant’s Transgender identity was disclosed which led to a vote being taken on the complainant’s application to become a leader an which resulted in  the complainant being excluded from volunteering with younger groups.

The complainant became aware of the issue on 19th April 2024 and discovered the Council meeting minutes on 11th of May 2024.

The complainant raised these matters with the Safeguarding Unit on 27th May 2024 and again via an Equal Status notification to the respondent on 14th of June 2024

The respondent Safeguarding Department found that:

There was no evidence of a discriminatory culture in the group overall. However, the complaint was founded as Decisions about the complainant’s role were made solely based on his gender identity, which constituted discrimination.

Sensitive information was shared inappropriately.

The complainant had a positive experience for 18 months prior to the incident and no complaints were raised during that time.

The complainant declined offers of support from the respondent, including therapeutic sessions and mediation.

The group expressed disappointment and felt hurt by the complainant’s later actions.

Some members reported receiving harassing messages from the complainant

There was a verbal altercation between the complainant and a group leader Mr. C in August 2024 in which the complainant shouted and swore at Mr. C in a public place .

The group leader Mr. C reported the incident to An Garda Síochána, though no charges were pursued.

The respondent submits that it made the following recommendations on 3rd of July 2024 and recommended

 Appointment of a Safeguarding Case Officer as well as Further inquiry into discriminatory actions.

 Development of transgender awareness training and LGBTQIA+ inclusivity training.

Recommendations to improve handling of sensitive disclosures and support for marginalised groups.

The respondent submits that following further assessment by its Case Management Team who  upheld the complaint of discrimination it recommended that the complainant and members of the group responsible for the discrimination should attend  mediation  before any potential return of the complainant to the group.

The respondent apologised unreservedly and committed to preventing recurrence.

The complainant has not engaged in mediation, and the respondent remains open to dialogue.

The respondent disputes claim of ostracism and harassment, citing the complainant’s own actions as contributing to a hostile environment.

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

CA-00066764-001

17/10/2024

Discrimination

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,

The complainant is placed on proof of this in Section 38A of the Act. The seminal case in this regard remains Mitchell v Southern Health Board [2001] ELR 201

(2) A claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, the primary facts on which they rely in seeking to raise a presumption of unlawful discrimination. (3) Only if these primary facts are established to the satisfaction of the Court, and they are regarded as being of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination, does the onus shift to the respondent to prove that there was no infringement of the principle of equal treatment.  Wallace v. South-eastern Education and Library Board [1980] NI 38; [1980] IRLR 193 followed. (4) Gender imbalance in an interview board, although highly undesirable, does not, in itself, lead to prima facie finding of discrimination in every case. Nonetheless, such a practice is potentially discriminatory and can form part of the evidential chain on which a claim of discrimination could be made out. Gleeson v. Rotunda Hospital [2000] ELR 206 considered.

Burden of proof.

38A.— (1) Where in any proceeding’s 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.

Notification and ES 1 forms

Claims under the Equal Status act are required to be notified to the respondent within 2 months of the discriminatory act and the claim lodged with the WRC within 6 months of the act save where an extension is granted.

I note that the Equal Status complaint was submitted by the complainant on 17th of October 2024 and refers to an incident on ES 1 notification sent to the respondent on 14th of June 2024.  The complainant also sent an ES1 notification to a Group leader of the respondent Mr. C on 1st of May 2024.

I also note that the act of discrimination referred to in the claim form stems from a disclosure made to the complainant on 19th of April 2024 on which date the complainant Mr. E became aware that his Transgender Identity  had been disclosed to the group  without his knowledge in a Group Council meeting during which the complainants application to join was subjected to a vote based on his Transgender Identity and a discussion took place regarding which group the complainant could be assigned to based on his Transgender Identity. 

The complainant submits that he only became aware of this on 19th of April 2024 and so he submits that it is from this date that he became aware that his application had been dealt with in a discriminatory manner.  In addition, the complainant submits that once he became aware of the disclosure, he attributed certain past behaviors and treatment to the fact that the respondent was aware of his Transgender Identity which prior to this he had understood to have been confidential and unknown to the group.

I am satisfied that the complaint as submitted falls within the timelines set out under the Equal Status Act.

Discrimination

The complainant Mr. E advised the hearing that he was  discriminated against by the respondent when he applied to become a volunteer leader in the respondent  organisation as his application was subjected to a vote by the Group Council following the disclosure of his transgender identity by a group leader Mr. D.

The complainant submits that the Chair of the meeting Mr. C  then called a vote to decide whether to accept the complainant’s application while attaching the condition that he not be allowed to lead younger groups due to his Transgender identity.

The complainant advised the hearing that he only became aware of this on 19th of April 2024 when another leader Mr. B disclosed it to him.

The complainant submits that he has lived as a male for more than 10 years and that it is only family and close friends who were aware of his having transitioned.

The complainant submits that he was not aware until 19th of April 2024 that his Transgender Identity had been disclosed to the group and that a vote had been taken on his application to join as a volunteer due to his Transgender Identity.   The meeting in question took place on 4th of October 2022.

The complainant notified group leader Mr. D on 27th of April 2024 that he had become aware of the disclosure and the vote which had taken place in respect of his application to join.

The complainant advised the hearing that on 28th of April 2024 the minutes of the Group Council meeting referred to were uploaded to a shared drive which could be accessed by the complainant and 8 other individuals who were members of the volunteer group.   The complainant submits that he was also bullied and harassed due to his Transgender Identity.

Witness for the complainant, Ms. G who had previously occupied  a leadership role in the respondent organisation advised the hearing that she had been in attendance at the Group Council meeting on 4th of October 2022 and stated that she had at the time told Mr. D that he should not have disclosed the complainant’s Transgender identity.  Ms. G advised the hearing that Mr. D immediately acknowledged his mistake in having made the disclosure and that he had done so inadvertently.

Ms. G stated that the Chair of the meeting Mr. C  then called a vote to decide whether to accept the complainant’s application while attaching the condition that the complainant not be allowed to lead younger groups. due to his Transgender identity

Witness for the complainant Ms. G stated that she had at the time advised the Council  that such a  discussion should not be taking place and that it was discriminatory.

Ms. G advised the hearing that she herself had abstained from the vote and asked that it be noted in the minutes of the meeting that she had abstained from the vote.   The minutes were submitted in evidence and reflected that Ms. G had abstained from the vote.

Ms. G also advised the hearing that although Mr. D had disclosed the complainants Transgender Identity Mr. D had acknowledged that this was a mistake and he had at the meeting stated that the complainant should in his opinion be permitted  to volunteer with any age group irrespective of his Transgender Identity.

Ms. G advised the hearing that she later brought the matter to the attention of the organisations safeguarding team via a phone call to Mr. A Provincial Support Officer on 19th of October 2022 and later via a complaint submitted by email on 28th of October 2022.

Ms. G advised the hearing that she herself had been transitioning at the time,  a matter which she had previously disclosed to a number of members of the group who were present at the October 2022, meeting with the exclusion of Mr. D.

Ms. G in her email to safeguarding advised that she was also transitioning and that this incident had raised very real concerns for her regarding the support and acceptance she could expect from the group once she had transitioned.   Ms. G stated that this had been a very upsetting experience for her having been a part of the organisation for 15 years.

Ms. G  later resigned from her position and left the organisation citing the conduct of officials as her reason.   

Witness for the  respondent and safeguarding Officer Mr. M advised the hearing that they had received Ms. G’s complainant back in October 2022 but that it had not referred to the complainant by name or identified him and so he stated that he was not aware of whose Transgender Identity had been disclosed at the meeting  or that the discussion complained of by Ms. G related to Mr. E. 

The respondent stated that at the time of Ms. G’s complaint the matter had been referred to safeguarding but he acknowledged  that they did not have adequate supports in place to deal with the matter.  Mr. M  stated that the matter was considered a Group issue and so they had reverted to the Group for resolution within the Group.      Mr. M stated   that it was considered that no further input from Safeguarding was needed and so the file was later closed.   Mr. M acknowledged that the matter of Ms. G’s complaint was not handled correctly in 2022 stating that the Group had sought supports from outside the Group which Mr. M states  unfortunately were not available at the time.

The complainant Mr. E advised the hearing that he had only become aware on 19th of April 2024 that his application to become a volunteer had been subjected to a vote based on his Transgender Identity and he had been shocked and upset to learn that this had been disclosed to the group and also that many others within the group were now aware of his Transgender Identity.  Furthermore Mr. E stated that it was even more upsetting to learn that his application to join as a volunteer had been the subject of a vote with the condition attached that he should not be permitted to work with younger groups.

The complainant stated that becoming aware of these events  and the disclosure of his Transgender Identity had a devastating effect on him given that he had lived as male for over 10 years and that only family and close friends were aware of his transition..

The complainant stated that his application was subjected to a vote which was solely due to his Transgender Identity having been disclosed to the group.

The complainant submits that  he was treated less favourably due to his Transgender Identity as no other application was subjected to a vote before being accepted.

The complainant went on to state that he later  notified Group Leader Mr. C that he had become aware of the disclosure and the vote and that Mr. C had then notified Group leader Mr. D of this.   The complainant advised the hearing that following this on the 11th of May 2024  Mr. D had uploaded the minutes of the October 2022 meeting to a shared drive which was accessible to a number of people in the group including the complainant.   The complainant stated that the minutes had recorded that the complainants Transgender Identity was disclosed and discussed at the meeting and also that a vote had been taken on the complainant’s application and was subject to the condition that he be assigned to an older group only.

Witness for the complainant Ms. G added that comments were also made at the October 2022 meeting by two other group leaders stating that the complainant should not be assigned to younger groups as parents might remove their children from the organisation if they learned that a person of Transgender Identity was the leader for their kids.  These comments were made by members of the board Ms. L and Ms. K

The complainant advised the hearing that following his becoming aware of the events surrounding his initial application he submitted a complaint to the respondent safeguarding Unit who conducted an investigation into the events of the October 2022 meeting and concluded that the complainant had been discriminated against when his application had been subjected to a vote and conditions due to his Transgender Identity.

Witness for the respondent Mr. M advised the hearing that It had conducted an investigation into the complaint submitted by Mr. E and that it had concluded that the complainant Mr. E had been discriminated against by the respondent.

The respondent acknowledged that the complainant Mr. E had been discriminated against and following the outcome of its investigation the respondent offered to pay for six therapy sessions for the complainant as an offer of support to the complainant.

 The respondent also proposed that awareness training and guidance in this area be progressed by the organisations Equality Diversity and Inclusiveness team.  The respondent advised the hearing that the complainant refused its offer of payment for six therapy sessions.

The complainant advised the hearing that during the investigation process he was told not to attend meetings and to take a step back which he submits amounts to victimisation after making a complaint.

The complainant advised the hearing that he has not returned to the organisation and that his return was conditional on him attending mediation.

The respondent at the hearing was very apologetic towards the complainant and towards Ms. G who had felt it necessary to resign over the incident.

The respondent outlined how the views expressed at that meeting were not reflective of the organisations culture and advised the hearing that it has since then made efforts to train and educate all group leaders and members in Trans  issues and in Equality and diversity.

The respondent advised the hearing that it has a large number of members who are members of the LGBTQI community and stated that it would never wish to alienate or isolate any member  or leader.

 The respondent stated that while it did make a finding that the complainant was discriminated against due to a decision being made that the complainant be placed with older groups and not with younger groups the respondent also stated that it assessment of the matter concluded that this was not done for any malicious reasons but that the intention was to protect Mr. E given that his exposure to younger groups and the questions they might ask may have been difficult for the complainant.  

The respondent advised the hearing  that it strives to have a culture of inclusion and diversity and that the experience of the complainant is not in any way condoned by the respondent organisation.

The respondent went on to state that it is a voluntary organisation and so it is relying on volunteers to give up their time to participate in its activities. The respondent stated that this is one reason why the investigation took so long as it had to try and arrange interviews with individuals in whatever time  those volunteers had available.  The respondent also stated that as it is not an employer it had no control over volunteers’ availability or participation in the investigation and assessment process.

The respondent advised the hearing that it did conduct an investigation and assessment and that it concluded on balance of probabilities that the  complainant had been discriminated against in respect of the disclosure of his Transgender Identity and in respect of how his application had been dealt with by being subjected to a vote conditional on his not being assigned to younger groups.   The respondent stated that it had offered to pay for six therapy sessions for the complainant to support and help him to deal with the effects of the discrimination .

  The respondent stated that it had also recommended that the complainant attend mediation with Mr C but added that the complainant had refused to engage in  mediation.  The respondent stated that it had also taken steps to ensure that all leaders and members received training in Equality and diversity matters but the respondent added that again it could not force individuals to attend as they were volunteers who were giving up their free time to volunteer for the organisation.

The respondent stated that it had published detailed information on its website in respect of Transgender issues but that it had received some complaints and backlash following these publications following claims that the material was too detailed.

Witness for the respondent Mr. M  also advised the hearing that they  had received a complaint from Ms. G following the October 2022 meeting but stated that the complaint did not identify the complainant Mr. E .  The respondent stated that it had then passed the matter to its Volunteer and Support Group Unit who had then referred it back to be dealt with at local level, but Mr. M stated that unfortunately the file was then closed.  The respondent stated that it was only when the complainant contacted then with his complaint in that it had reopened the file with Ms, G s complaint and associated both complainants.

The respondent apologised to the complainant and to Ms. G acknowledging the valuable contribution made by both of them to the organisation during their time as volunteers.   The respondent also offered both the complainant and Ms, G the opportunity to return to the organisation while stating that they could return to different areas and groups if they so wished.

Having examined the totality of the evidence adduced I am satisfied that the complainant was subjected to less favourable treatment by the respondent when his application to join as a leader was subjected to a vote and was also subjected to the condition that he not  be assigned to younger  groups.  I am satisfied that this treatment was due to his Transgender Identity which had been disclosed to the group and that it amounts to discrimination on grounds of gender.

Harassment

 I note that the complainant has also submitted that he was harassed by the respondent on grounds of his Transgender Identity.  

 The complainant asserts that he was bullied and harassed by group leader Mr. D but that it was not until he learned that Mr D had been aware of his Transgender Identity that he then attributed the treatment he experienced to the fact that Mr. D had been aware of his Transgender Identity.

The complainant in asserting this claim referred to incidents where he had felt bullied or belittled by other group leaders but stated that he was unaware at the time that this Transgender Identity had been disclosed and so he did not consider that the bullying and harassment were related to his Transgender Identity.

The complainant in citing these incidents referred to incidents which took place over a period dating before the 19th of April 2024 before he became aware that his Transgender Identity was known to others in the organisation.

The complainant acknowledges that he did not during this time period make any claim of harassment on grounds of gender.

The complainant in outlining the allegations of harassment on grounds of gender  made reference to incidents where autism was referred to in a negative way and which he states was a reference to the fact that he has been diagnosed with autism which he states is a matter which is known to other group leaders.    I am however satisfied that these alleged comments  did not relate to his Transgender Identity.

The complaint outlined other incidents which he submits amount to harassment on grounds of Transgender Identity, but he acknowledged that he never raised any of these matters with the respondent until his claim of discrimination which he submitted in May June 2024.

The complainant sought to assert that the respondent had been aware of the fact of his Transgender Identity having been disclosed and discussed at the meeting of 4th of October 2022 following the complaint submitted by Ms. G in October 2022 but the respondent in reply to this stated that Ms. G ‘s complaint did not identify the complainant or name him.  Ms. G at the hearing confirmed that she did not identify the complainant Mr. E in her complaint to the respondent in 2022.

The complainant in his evidence to the hearing did not cite any incidents of harassment where there was any direct reference to his Transgender Identity or which could clearly be linked to same and so I am satisfied that he was not harassed on grounds of his Transgender Identity during the period covered by the complaint.

I note however that that there is some overlap between the claim of discrimination and harassment and  I am satisfied that the complainant was subjected to discrimination on the ground of gender when he was subjected to less favourable treatment solely on the grounds of his Transgender Identity.

I also note that the complainant in his evidence stated that he was very happy in the organisation for a period of 18 months.

Overall, on the balance of probabilities  I am satisfied that the complainant was not harassed by the respondent on grounds of his Transgender Identity.

Victimisation

The complainant submits that he was subjected to victimisation following the submission of his complaint to the respondent.

The complainant in outlining the adverse treatment stated that he was not permitted to return to meetings following the submission of his complaint.

The respondent denied this but advised the hearing that the complainant himself had chosen to take a step back from attending meetings following his discovery of 19th of April 2024 and that he stated this in an email dated 27th of May 2024, which was submitted in evidence.

The respondent stated that the complainant had attended a meeting in September 2024.  The respondent advised the hearing that it had later been notified of a verbal altercation between the complainant and Mr. C following which Mr. C had made a complaint that Mr. E had shouted and sworn at him in a public place.  The respondent stated that  after being notified of this they had asked the complainant not to attend meetings until after their assessment had concluded which would be followed by a mediation process.

The complainant Mr. E at the hearing conceded that this incident did happen in August 2024 and that he had sworn at Mr. C .  The complainant at the hearing acknowledged that this was unacceptable but stated that it was born out of pure frustration with what was happening.

Witness for the respondent Mr. M stated that it had also received a complaint that the complainant had sent harassing text messages to group leaders including Mr. C  and so the respondent had asked the complainant not to attend meetings while it was investigating these allegations.    The respondent stated that the confrontation between the complainant and Mr. C had taken place on 14th of August 2024 and that it was only in September 2024 after they received a complaint from Mr. C, that they asked the complainant not to attend meetings until the matter was resolved.

The respondent stated that following this they had asked that the complainant to attend mediation with Mr. C in order to try to resolve these issues but that the complainant had refused.

The complainant at the hearing acknowledged that the interaction with Mr, C had taken place as outlined in August 2024 and also acknowledged that he should not have said what he did but stated that he was frustrated with how he had been treated .

The complainant in advancing the claim of victimisation sought to rely on the submission of his complaint as the protected act following which he submits he was subjected to adverse treatment.   The complainant advised the hearing that he submitted an ES1 form to Mr. C on 1st of May 2024 and to the Safeguarding unit on 14th of June 2024. 

The respondent denies that Mr. E  was asked to take a step back on foot of his complaint but that he was asked to take a step back due having sent harassing texts and also due to having engaged in a confrontation with Mr. C.

Having considered the totality of the evidence adduced I am satisfied that the complainant was not victimised by the respondent as a reaction to having committed a protected act.

Redress

In considering the redress to award I am cognisant that this is a voluntary organisation with limited funding however I am also conscious the complainant has suffered from this discrimination and felt forced to leave the organisation which he had loved contributing to.  Having considered all the circumstances in this case, I direct the Respondent to pay compensation of €5,000 for the effects of the discrimination, having regard to the principle of proportionality and given that the award should be dissuasive.

Having considered the totality of the evidence adduced I am satisfied that

the complainant was discriminated against by the respondent on grounds of gender and I award the complainant the sum of €5,000 in compensation for the discrimination.

the complainant was not harassed by the respondent on grounds of gender

the complainant was not victimised by the respondent.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00066797-001

18/10/2024

The complainant submitted the same complaint under both the Equal Status and the Employment Equality Acts.

The complainant advised the hearing that he was not an employee of the named respondent and that no employment relationship existed.  The complainant further stated that his claim related to his treatment as a volunteer for the respondent and  could more appropriately be dealt with under the Equal Status Acts.

I am satisfied that the claim is more appropriately dealt with under the Equal Status acts  and that the claim under the Employment Equality Acts is a duplicate claim and that the matters complained of have already been dealt with in the decision under the Equal Status Act and a finding made in that regard.

Accordingly, I declare this claim to be not well founded.

 I declare this claim to be not well founded.