Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Mother Ms. A on behalf of her daughter Ms. B

A Residential Sports Camp Provider

Representatives

Siobhan Conlon Siobhan Conlon 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-00069181-001

10/02/2025

Two claims were submitted in relation to these matters, one by Ms. A on behalf of her daughter Ms. B who was 15 years old at the time of the alleged discrimination, and the other with Ms. B as the named complainant.  The claims are taken against the same respondent and relate to the same allegations of discrimination against Ms. B by the respondent.  

 The first claim form was submitted on  10th of February 2024 naming the complainants mother Ms. A as the complainant.  The second claim form was submitted on 12th of February 2025 and named Ms. B as the complainant. 

At the hearing of the claims, the complainant Ms. A clarified that she was advancing the claim on behalf of her daughter Ms. B who has a disability within the meaning of the Acts.   Ms A clarified that both claims related to the same matters.  Accordingly, I am satisfied that the second claim under Adj-00056964 is a duplicate of this claim and my findings in relation to this claim are my findings in respect of Adj-00056964.

The claim forms alleged discrimination on grounds of race age and disability.  At the hearing of the claims   Ms. A  who is the mother of Ms. B and who lodged the claims on behalf of her daughter clarified that claims on grounds of age and race were not being pursued and these were withdrawn at the hearing.    

The complainant Ms. A advised the hearing that she was only proceeding with the claim of discrimination on grounds of disability.   Ms. A clarified that she was advancing the claim on behalf of her daughter Ms. B who has a disability within the meaning of the Acts. The claim submitted is one of discrimination on grounds of disability as well as a failure to provide reasonable accommodation.

Ms. A is the mother of Ms. B a minor who was 15 years old at the time of the alleged discrimination.

Ms. B is a talented and passionate athlete currently competing at an advanced level.

The complainant Ms. A submits that her daughter Ms. B has a history of self harm and periodic poor mental health for which she has received medical and therapeutic intervention.

 The complainant Ms. A submits that the respondent is a service provider for short-term day and overnight sports camp.

 The complainant Ms. A submits that she  booked a residential sports camp with the respondent  for her daughter, the Ms. B, to participate in  August 2024 and paid a fee of €595 for the service.

The complainant Ms. A submits that  Ms. B’s therapist, who was aware of her mental health needs and history of self-harm informed the complainants that therapeutic intervention of  Ms. B’s mental health was not necessary at the material time.   Ms. B began the residential camp on 11th August 2024.

The complainant Ms. A submits that on the second day Ms. B communicated with Ms. A  that the food provided at the residential camp was inadequate.

The complainants met briefly on the 12th August so that food could be dropped off by Ms. A for her daughter Ms. B.

The complainant Ms. A submits that she emailed the respondent later that evening to raise her concern that the meals provided for teenagers participating in a physical exercise  programme were inadequate; breakfast consisted of cereal or toast, lunch consisted of a prepackaged sandwich and crisps, dinner commenced at  9pm resulting in an 8 hour gap between lunch and dinner.

The complainant Ms. A submits that she made it clear on several occasions that this complaint was not to be discussed with her daughter Ms. B.

The complainant Ms. A submits that In direct conflict with Ms. A ’s instructions to not discuss this matter with her daughter, two male coaches at the  camp asked  Ms. B to step aside with them to a private area to talk to her about the complaint her mother made concerning the food.

 The complainant Ms. A submits that they enquired what food Ms. B usually ate. The complainant Ms. A submits that Ms. B later advised her that she had felt uncomfortable during this meeting and returned to the camp group with the knowledge that other camp participants knew she was taken aside by two camp coaches.

The complainant Ms. A submits that Mr D a coach at the camp, acting for the respondent, phoned  Ms. A  on 13th August 2024.   Ms. A  missed the call as she was attending hospital with her son and so she later returned the call to the respondent.

 The complainant Ms. A submits that over the course of the call, Mr D  became emotionally elevated regarding the complaint around the food provided and he then stated that  he had seen self-harm scars on  Ms. B.

 The complainant Ms. A submits that she then disclosed to Mr. D  that her daughter Ms. B had a history of self-harm, following which Mr. D  ordered that the Ms. A  must remove  Ms. B from the residential camp immediately for failure to disclose her daughter’s past mental health difficulties and illness.

The complainant Ms. A submits that Mr D also  informed her  that he would take legal action against the complainant for not disclosing her daughters Ms. B’s mental health history.

The complainant Ms. A submits that she  was shocked and upset following the call with Mr. D  who during the call had accused her of neglect and bad parenting for leaving her daughter in the camp.

The complainant Ms. A submits that no attempts to provide appropriate accommodations for  Ms. B were discussed, nor was there any assessment of  Ms. B’s needs carried out, nor assessment of how her disability would impact her ability to participate in the services provided for by the respondent.

 The complainant Ms. A submits that  Ms. B was in good mental health at the time of the camp and was in contact with her parents who had visited her to bring her food.

The complainant Ms. A submits that Mr D indicated in a text message sent August 13th at 10:32am that  Ms. B was “happy and relaxed”. Later, during the phone call at 12:41, Mr D requested her removal from the camp. At no point was there any indication that  Ms. B posed a risk to herself or others, or that her mental health history made her unsuitable to participate in the camp.

 The complainant Ms. A submits that her  husband attended the camp later that day and collected  Ms. B and removed her from the camp as directed..

The complainant Ms. A submits that she then  requested a refund from the respondents in writing. The refund was agreed but not paid. The complainant Ms. A submits that It was indicated to her that an internal report was being prepared by the respondents and  so Ms. A  requested a copy in writing. Which was not received.

The complainant Ms. A submits that she completed an ES 1 form and sent it by registered post and by email to the respondent within 2 months of the discrimination.

 A response was not received.

 The complainant Ms. A submits that Ms. B was discriminated against based on a disability; a mental health illness or in the alternative was discriminated against by imputing a perceived mental illness.

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

The issue for decision by me now is, whether the respondent discriminated against the complainant on grounds of disability in terms of sections 3(2) of the Equal Status Acts, 2000-2015.   In reaching my Decision I have considered all the submissions, oral and written, made to me during my investigation as well as the evidence at the Hearing.

Section 3(1) provides, inter alia, that discrimination shall be taken to occur where:

(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) (in this Act referred to as the ‘‘discriminatory grounds)’’

Section 3(2)(g) provides that: as between any two persons, the discriminatory ground of disability is,

(g) that 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 38A (1) provides that the burden of proof is: " 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." It requires the complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts upon which he/she can rely in asserting that the prohibited conduct has occurred. Therefore, 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. I am satisfied that the respondent is providing a service within the meaning of the Equal Status Acts.

It is submitted that the complainant is a person with a disability for the purposes of the Act.   Section 2 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 defines “disability”, inter alia, as meaning “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 complainant Ms.  A  advised the hearing that she was advancing the claim on behalf of her daughter Ms. B who was 15 years old at the time of the alleged discrimination.  Ms. A advised the hearing that her daughter Ms. B  is a person with a disability and that she had suffered with Mental Health difficulties and illness.  Ms. A advised the hearing that her daughter Ms.. B had previously suffered from depression and had episodes of  self-harm and had attended a therapist  to help her in dealing with these issues.  Ms. A advised the hearing that Ms. B had finished her therapy sessions in November 2023 and so when she asked if she could attend a residential sports camp In August 2024 Ms. A stated that she was happy to let her attend and had no issues or  concerns at the time.

Ms. A advised the hearing that she did not advise the respondent of her daughter’s mental health difficulties at the time of the application process and felt that here was no need to mention it as Ms. B s last therapy session had been in November 2023.    Ms A advised the hearing that Ms. B had  shown some new cuts in May 2024 but following reengagement her Therapist concluded that here was no urgent need to see Ms. B  at the time.

Ms. A advised the hearing that the self-harm scars were still visible in August 2024 when Ms. B attended the sports camp.  Ms. A stated that she did not disclose  this to the camp co-ordinators as there was no need to do so as it was not an issue at the time of the camp.   Ms A advised the hearing that her daughter’s history of mental difficulties and self-harm did not in any way impede her participation in the camp.

Ms. A stated that it was only when Mr. D in a conversation with Ms. A stated that he had seen the self-harm scars on Ms. B s arm  that Ms. A confirmed to Mr. D that Ms. B had self-harmed in the past but stated that she was not having any issues at the time of the camp.

Ms. A advised the hearing that once that the respondent  became aware of Ms. B having self-harmed previously the camp coach Mr. D  instructed Ms. A to immediately remove her daughter from camp in which Ms. B had been participating.

Ms. A advised the hearing that this exchange took place via a phone call between Ms. A and the camp coach Mr. D.

I am satisfied from the totality of the evidence adduced that the complainant is a person with a disability for the purpose of the Acts.  

Discrimination on grounds of disability

Section 38A of the Equal Status Acts sets out the burden of proof which applies in a claim of discrimination. It requires the complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts upon which he/she can rely in asserting that prohibited conduct has occurred in relation to him/her. It is only where such a prima facie case has been established that the onus shifts to the respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination raised. In making my decision, I have taken into account all of the evidence, written and oral, made to me by the parties to the case.

Section 3(1) of the Act provides, inter alia, that discrimination shall be taken to occur where:

(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) (in this Act referred to as the ‘‘discriminatory grounds)’’

In addition, sections 4 (1) and 4 (2) of the Equal Status Acts set out the obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation to a person with a disability:

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.

The complainant Ms. A advised the hearing that she had in May 2024 enrolled her daughter Ms. B a residential sports camp being run by the respondent.  Ms. A stated that she had paid a fee of €595 for the five day camp which was taking place in August 2024.

 Ms. A advised the hearing that her daughter Ms. B who was 15 years old at the time  had attended the camp and had enjoyed the camp but that she had after the first day mentioned to her mother that she was not being provided with enough food at the camp especially given the amount of physical exertion involved in the daily activities at the camp.  Ms. A advised the hearing that her daughter is an  athlete and has represented Ireland in international competitions. 

Ms. A advised the hearing that she was notified by her daughter on the second day of the camp that she was not receiving enough food at the camp.  Ms. A stated that her daughter had tod her that she had the previous day had breakfast at 7.30 am followed by a sandwich and fruit at 12.30 and di d not have anything else until dinner which wasn’t until 9 pm that night.  Ms. A stated that she was very concerned by this as it meant there was an 8 hour gap between lunch and dinner.

Ms. A told the hearing that following this communication from her daughter she had been concerned at the long gap between meals   Ms. A  advised the hearing that the camp advertisement had stated that there was a shop on site in which snacks could be purchased by the participants if needed but when the camp was up and running they discovered that there was no shop on site and so Ms. A and her husband had that day driven to the camp to drop off snacks for her daughter in order that she should not go hungry while participating in the camp.    

Ms. A stated that they did not alert the camp to this but she  advised the hearing that after she returned home she thought that this situation was not right and so she emailed the respondent later that evening to raise her concerns about the lack of food and also asked for a food schedule so as that her daughter would know what time to expect dinner  given that the previous day there had been an 8 hour gap between lunch and dinner.

Ms. A advised the hearing that she had stated a number of times in her email that her complaint was not to be discussed with her daughter Ms. B.   

Ms A advised the hearing that she had received an acknowledgement of her email from Ms. E who indicated that a coach Mr D would contact her in the morning.

Ms. A stated that Mr. D had phoned her that morning but she missed the call as she was at a hospital appointment and so she had sent a message saying she would contact him later.

Ms. A advised the hearing that in spite of her request not to mention the matter to her daughter  she received a message from her daughter that morning asking her what was going on  as she stated that  Mr. D had asked her for Ms. A’s phone number even though it was already provided in the contact form.

Ms. A advised the hearing that she immediately messaged Mr. D and asked him not to discuss the matter with her daughter but in spite of this she was informed by her daughter that Mr. D and another male coach had called Ms. B aside from the group to talk to them in a private area and discussed the complaint her mother had made concerning the food asking Ms. B what kind of food she was used to eating at home.

 Ms. A advised the hearing that that her daughter told her  that she had felt uncomfortable during this meeting and returned to the camp group with the knowledge that other camp participants knew she had been singled out by two camp coaches for a private discussion.

Ms. A stated that she phoned Mr. D once she got back from the hospital.  Ms. A stated that Mr. D told her that he had been running camps for several years and that the camp was not a 5 star hotel where they would be making scrambled egg every morning for her daughter.   Ms. A advised the hearing that Mr. D then mentioned that  he had seen self-harm scars on  Ms. B s arms.

Ms. A advised the hearing that following this statement by Mr. D,  Ms. A had told him that her daughter Ms. B had a past history of self-harm, following which Mr. D  ordered that the Ms. A  must immediately remove her daughter from the  camp  for failure to disclose her  past mental health difficulties.

Ms. A advised the hearing that Mr. D then accused her of being a bad parent for sending her daughter to the camp  and threatened to take legal action against Ms. A.

Ms. A stated that he told her to ‘remove her now’ in reference to her daughter.

Ms. A advised the hearing that she was shocked by this, but her husband went and collected their daughter from the camp that day.  Ms. A stated that following her daughter’s departure from the camp she had exchanged a number of emails with the respondent in which she had sought a refund fo the fees paid for the camp given that her daughter should have been there for 5 days but was instructed to leave after 2 days.  Ms. A stated that the respondent initially stated that they would have to calculate how much of a refund she was entitled to as her daughter had been there for part of the camp and had consumed some food while there.  Ms. A stated that the respondent had also stated that a report would have to be carried out in respect of Ms. A and her daughter and she had asked for a copy of this report but never received anything    Ms. A stated that later emails agreed that a refund would be paid once the report was completed but no payment was ever received.

Ms. A stated that her daughter Ms. B had at the time been very distressed by what happened and she stated that it had affected her self esteem and confidence.  Ms. A stated that her daughter had previously been taught that it was okay to let her scars be seen and so she had no problem with her scars but since this incident she has tried to hide her scars as she is afraid that she will be judged by people because of them.  Ms. A stated that she herself was  made to feel like had done something wrong by allowing her daughter to take part in the camp and that she was made to feel that she should not have allowed her daughter to participate due to the fact that she had a past history of mental difficulties and self-harm.  Ms. A added that her daughter loved participating in sport and that it brings her great joy.

Ms A at the hearing came across as very consistent and honest in her account if what happened she also stated that her motivation in taking the claim was to show her daughter that she the way she was treated was no right and that you need to fight for yourself.

In considering this matter I note that the complainant had not previously disclosed her daughter’s health issues, but she stated that Mr. D had raised the matter with her during the phone call of 13th of August when he stated that he had seen self-harm scars on her daughters’ arm.  Ms. A advised the hearing that she had in response to this told Mr. D that her daughter had a past history of mental health difficulties and self-harming.  Ms. A stated that as soon as she disclosed this Mr. D told her to remove her daughter from the camp which she did.

Having considered the evidence adduced in relation to this matter I am satisfied the complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination on grounds of disability which the respondent has failed to rebut.  I am also satisfied that the respondent failed to consider what if any reasonable accommodation could be required to enable the complainant to participate in the camp.  

Accordingly, I am satisfied that the complainant was discriminated against by the respondent on the disability ground and that the respondent failed in its obligation to provide reasonable accommodation for a disability.

In considering the redress to award in this case I am cognisant of the fact that any award made should be effective proportionate and dissuasive.   Accordingly, I deem an award of €8,000 to be appropriate having regard to all of the circumstances of this case.

I am satisfied that the complainant was discriminated against by the respondent on the disability ground and that the respondent failed in its obligation to provide reasonable accommodation for a disability.  Accordingly, I direct the respondent to pay the complainant the sum of €8,000 in compensation for the effects of the discrimination.