ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00056964

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Complainant Ms. B	A Residential Sports Camp Provider

Representatives

Siobhan Conlon Siobhan Conlon Solicitors

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000	CA-00069246-001	12/02/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/09/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Orla Jones

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

The matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

As provided for in Section 41 (13) and (14) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 I have decided that the proceedings should be held otherwise than in public. I have determined that due to the existence of special circumstances, that is the inclusion of sensitive medical information relating to a minor, in publishing the decision, information that would identify the parties in relation to whom the decision is made should not be published by the Workplace Relations Commission.

A remote hearing in respect of this matter was initially scheduled to take place on 25th of July 2025 but was adjourned to a later date following communications from the respondent stating that the respondent had only become aware of the claims on the 23rd of July 2025, despite the fact that correspondence had issued to the companies registered office. Having considered the submissions made by the respondent and having regard to the circumstances, the matter was adjourned to a later date. The matter was rescheduled, and a further remote hearing took place on 5th of September 2025. The respondent did not attend the rescheduled hearing and made no contact with the Commission before the scheduled hearing or in the aftermath of the hearing.

I am satisfied that the respondent was notified of the hearing date and time and that the link to the remote hearing was sent to the respondent at the email address from which correspondence had been received on behalf of the respondent on the 23rd and 24th of July in respect of the previous scheduled hearing.

On the day of the hearing, I allowed a grace period to allow for a late attendance by the respondent. The respondent did not dial in to the hearing and did not make contact with the Commission. Accordingly, I proceeded with the hearing of this matter.

Background:

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 from claim was submitted on 10th of February 2025 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.

The claim forms alleged discrimination on grounds of race age and disability. The complainants mother Ms. A at the hearing clarified that claims on grounds of age and race were not being pursued and these were withdrawn at the hearing.

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.

At the hearing of the claims, 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 this claim under Adj-00056964 is a duplicate of the claim reference ADJ-00056871 and my findings in relation to that claim are my findings in respect of this claim Adj-00056964.

I am satisfied that there is no additional case to be considered and my findings in relation to ADJ-00056871 are my findings in relation to this complaint.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

I am satisfied that this claim under Adj-00056964 is a duplicate of the claim reference ADJ-00056871 and my findings in relation to that claim are my findings in respect of this claim Adj-00056964.

I am satisfied that there is no additional case to be considered and my findings in relation to ADJ-00056871 are my findings in relation to this complaint.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

Findings and Conclusions:

I am satisfied that this claim under Adj-00056964 is a duplicate of the claim reference ADJ-00056871 and my findings in relation to that claim are my findings in respect of this claim Adj-00056964.

I am satisfied that there is no additional case to be considered and my findings in relation to ADJ-00056871 are my findings in relation to this complaint.

Decision:

Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.

I am satisfied that this claim under Adj-00056964 is a duplicate of the claim reference ADJ-00056871 and my findings in relation to that claim are my findings in respect of this claim Adj-00056964.

I am satisfied that there is no additional case to be considered and my findings in relation to ADJ-00056871 are my findings in relation to this complaint.

Dated: 12th of December 2025.

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Orla Jones

Key Words: