ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058525
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Service user | Health Care Provider |
Representatives | self | Elizabeth McGeown Byrne Wallace Shields LLP |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00071112-001 | 27/04/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 04/11/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, andfollowing the referral of the complaint(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s).
I have exercised my right to anonymise the parties having regard to the circumstances of this case that concerns a referral to a clinical psychologist for clinical assessment relating to a possible diagnosis of a clinical disorder.
Background:
This case alleges that a clinical psychologist inappropriately and without a good reasonable cause asked this client about her sexual orientation.
She also took issue with the Psychologist wearing a Rainbow Badge provided by the Psychologist’s employer. The badge is a visual symbol that identifies that the wearer as someone that an LGBTQ+ person can feel comfortable talking to about issues relating to sexuality and gender.
The Complainant asserts that her sexual orientation had nothing to do with the diagnosis she attended at the clinic for.
The Complainant alleges in her claim forms that she has been unlawfully discriminated against, both directly and indirectly by the Respondent, on the grounds of her gender, family status, and sexual orientation in the provision of services by the Respondent. The Complainant also alleges in her claim forms that she has been harassed and victimised by the Respondent.
The Respondent respectfully submits that the complaint is statute barred, as the Complainant has failed to lodge her complaint within the time limit outlined under sections 21(2) and 21(6)(a) of the Act of 2000. |
Preliminary Matter
The ES1 notification sent by the Complainant to the Respondent is dated 27 January 2025 and refers to an alleged act of discrimination which the Complainant alleges took place on 9 December 2024. However, the meeting during which the alleged act of discrimination took place happened on 8 October 2024.
The Complainant in an email to the WRC on 2 September 2025 at 23:19 alleges that redacted (Principal Psychologist with the Respondent) has “deliberately changed the date and falsified” the Complainant’s records “to avoid legal action”.
The Complainant states that her first time using the service was a referral meeting on the 9 December 2024 after she made a call to the [Redacted] practice after receiving an appointments letter. The Complainant contends that she did not attend prior to this. The typed record of the meeting opened at the hearing show that the Complainant attended the [Redacted] Practice on 8 October 2024 for a referral meeting with a Senior Clinical Psychologist and an Assistant Psychologist. A subsequent email was sent to redacted on 11 October 2024 by the Senior Clinical Psychologist, where he sent a copy to another colleague and sought his opinion regarding the next steps. According to the Respondent’s records a phone call was made to the Complainant on 9 December 2024 and a subsequent letter issued, but no meeting took place on that date. The Respondent alleges that the ES1 notification was sent outside of the two-month period within which the Complainant was obliged to notify the Respondent of her complaint under section 21(2)(a) of the Act of 2000.
The Complainant by email dated 2nd December 2025 stated that her claim was in time for the following reasons:
According to the [Redacted] on the of November at hearing they stated the claim was out of time … as the [Redacted] stated there were two appointments and provided evidence of two appointments one on the 8th of October 24 and one on the 9th of December 24 therefore under the equal status law discrimination the time frame runs from the last date of discrimination which was according to their own evidential the 9th of December therefore that was the last date of discrimination / advertising therefore is not out of time as the [Redacted] has stated there were two appointments the time frame runs cases runs from the last date of discrimination therefore is within the required time frame as according to the [Redacted] there were two appointments therefore the claim run from the last date of discrimination
The Complainant is arguing that the last point of contact with her was the 9th of December 2024 and that amounts to or constitutes ongoing discrimination.
Continuing Discrimination:
The Labour Court in Hurley v County Cork VEC (EDA1124) said that occurrences outside the time limit could only be considered if the last act relied upon was within the time limits and the other acts complained of were sufficiently connected to the final act to make them all part of a continuum. The case of the Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform v A Worker(EDA1422), which involved a complaint of alleged discrimination by a prospective employer and the Labour Court determined that the complainant had failed to prove a continuum of discrimination between historic alleged instances of discrimination outside of the six month referral period, and the alleged acts that the Court considered "in time", stating that the complainant failed to "establish a sufficient connection between the competitions, such that would support her contention that they should be viewed as anything other than a series of independent unconnected competitions".
That fact that 2 appointments were made does not constitute ongoing discrimination as the alleged incident of discrimination related to a question being put to the Complainant about her sexual orientation and not the fact of an appointment being made, along with the psychologist wearing a rainbow badge. That meeting according to the Respondent occurred on or about the 8th of October 2024. The Respondent has also submitted referral documentation from the Complainant’s GP that also show that an appointment was requested on or about 30th of July 2024 which is consistent with an October 2024 appointment.
Based on this evidence the complaint is out of time as the 2-month period to file the complaint passed on the 7th of December 2024 and the ES form is dated the 27th of January 2025. As I have determined that no continuing discrimination has been made out and the first alleged act of discrimination occurred on the 8th of October 2024, I determine that the complaint is out of time. As no explanation for the delay has been provided I must dismiss the claim. I find that the Respondent did not engage in prohibited conduct.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
See preliminary matter |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
See preliminary matter |
Findings and Conclusions:
See preliminary matter |
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.
That fact that 2 appointments were made does not constitute ongoing discrimination as the alleged incident of discrimination related to a question being put to the Complainant about her sexual orientation and not the fact of an appointment being made, along with the psychologist wearing a rainbow badge. That meeting according to the Respondent occurred on or about the 8th of October 2024. The Respondent has also submitted referral documentation from the Complainant’s GP that also show that an appointment was requested on or about 30th of July 2024 which is consistent with an October 2024 appointment. Based on this evidence the complaint is out of time as the 2-month period to file the complaint passed on the 7th of December 2024 and the ES form is dated the 27th of January 2025. As I have determined that no continuing discrimination has been made out and the first alleged act of discrimination occurred on the 8th of October 2024, I determine that the complaint is out of time. As no explanation for the delay has been provided I must dismiss the claim. I find that the Respondent did not engage in prohibited conduct. |
Dated: 10/12/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Key Words:
Out of time |