Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Edita  Petkeviciute

Poundland Limited Dealz

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

Sarah Comiskey Comiskey Solicitors

Naledi Bisiwe IBEC

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00041567-001

16/12/2020

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

CA-00041567-003

16/12/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00041567-005

16/12/2020

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant gave her evidence under oath, two witnesses for the respondent gave evidence under affirmation.  Cross examination was facilitated in relation to the witnesses.

At the start of the first hearing the complainant indicated that the discrimination complaint was proceeding but that neither the Hours of Work complaint nor the Unfair Dismissals complaint would be proceeding.  The complainant’s representative indicated that the complaint comprised discriminatory dismissal, discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodation and victimisation.  The first hearing was adjourned as the respondent indicated that they did not have sight of the entirety of the complaint.

At the completion of the hearings, I took the time to review all the oral evidence together with the written submissions made by the parties. The respective positions of the parties are noted, and a broad outline of the evidence and cross examination is provided.  I am not required to provide a line-by-line assessment of the evidence and submissions that I have rejected or deemed superfluous to the main findings.  I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held that a

“…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one.  Only broad reasons need be given…”.

The complainant submitted that she was subjected to a continuous pattern of severe degradation, humiliation abuse and wilful mistreatment at the hands of her line manager. She submitted that at the same time an Irish member of staff at the same managerial level as the complainant mistreated differently and significantly more ,.

The complainant submitted that she would give detailed evidence regarding repeated specific instances of discrimination including denigrating her ability to speak and understand the English language, humiliating her, mocking her, dealing with her roster in a different fashion, repeatedly singling her out and bullying her regarding the need to work faster to the point that she suffered serious injury to her back by attempting to overcompensate. She also submitted that she would give evidence of the discriminatory, obscene and deliberately abusive and humiliating language that he used.

The complainant also submitted that after she injured her back, her manager unduly pressurised her to carry out exercises to her injured back when he was not qualified to do so and put her under such psychological pressure that she attempted to self-medicate and to self-administer pain injections during a period when she could not attend her own doctor due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.

The complainant submitted that the respondents letter dismissing her speaks for itself and that the contents of the letter are strikingly prejudicial to the complainant.

The complainant submitted that she was discriminatorily dismissed on the basis of race and disability.

The complainant submitted that she was discriminated against by her line manager in how she was treated and that when she raised this mistreatment with him she was victimised in accordance with the Act.

The complainant submitted that she informed the respondent that her back injuries were sustained due to her lifting large objects within the store and that her employment was terminated on the same day. The respondent relies upon this notification as part of its reasoning to terminate the complainant constitutes victimisation within the meaning of the act.

The complainant submitted that there is a duty imposed on employers to provide reasonable accommodation, and that the respondent failed to engage in any meaningful assessment of reasonable accommodation.

The complainant cited the following cases in support of her claims:

Glasgow City Council v Zafar [1998] 2 All ER 953,

Davis v Dublin Institute of Technology (23 June 2000) HC,

Ntoko v Citibank [2004] ELR 116,

Mitchell v Southern Health Board [2001] ELR 2001,

HSE North Eastern Region v Sheridan EDA 0820,

A v Hotel DEC– E2009–003,

Ganusauskas v All Purpose Stone Ltd DEC–E2009–063,

Manager of an English Language School v Institute of Technology DEC–E2007–019,

Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal (2009) IRLR 226,

Worker v Engineering Company DEC–E2008–038,

HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Ring v Dansk almennyttigt Boligselskab and HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Skouboe Werge v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening acting on behalf of Pro Display A/S (Joined Cases C–335/11 and C–337/11) [2013] IRLR 571,

Complainant v Employer DEC–E2008–068, and

Z v Chain Store DEC–E2009–111.

Summary of Complainants Evidence:

The complainant noted that she was employed as a Duty Manager and reported to her line manager, the Store Manager. She stated that the work was very physical but that her relationship with her line manager was OK at first, however he started to criticise her English. The complainant noted that the line manager mumbled, and she couldn't understand what he was saying at first but that when he shouted you could understand him.

She outlined how she went to Lithuania in September or October of 2019, she also noted that he called her ‘shit before the shovel’ but could not recall the dates. She was asked if there was ever a period when he was not mean to her and responded, “yes when his mother passed away”. However, his behaviour returned to normal some weeks later and he would always come up to her saying she should work faster. She stated that he would scream and shout at her. She stated that she got loads of advice from the other duty manager both, did not know how to complain about her boss. She noted that she had panic attacks in the workplace.

The witness also stated that the line manager humiliated another non-Irish national worker but did not behave in the same fashion with Irish workers.

The complainant noted that she didn't start physio for her back but was on the list to do so. She stated that when they had welfare meetings it was “lies, all lies” and he would say to her that she was not doing anything.  She stated that she spoke to him about back pain.  She stated that she only put the issue of back pain on the record on her last day.

She stated that she inquired about the possibility of getting a job as a sales assistant and it was offered to her, but she stated that she would need physio.  However, she noted that he (the Store Manager) wanted her to come in immediately but when an Irish person was out on a sick note, he waited for her to return to work.

As regards the dismissal, the complainant noted that she had a valid medical certificate for the period up to 24 October but was dismissed in advance of that time frame. She stated that the occupational health assessment did not state that she would be returning within one or two months, and she noted that she was dismissed as she was not coming back in accordance with the capability occupational health assessment. She also noted that she did not decline to return to work but said that she could only return to work following physiotherapy. When asked about the appeal process, she was asked were there any witnesses to the managers behaviour but she replied that “no, somebody is hardly going to abuse you when others are around”.

The witness confirmed that she never raised any issues as she would have to come back to work and her manager was friends with the other managers. She noted that it was nonsense to say that she could complain. She noted that he bullied her because she was not Irish and did so on a daily basis.

Under cross examination the complainant was asked whether she ever reported any of the matters, but she stated that “no, he was her boss” noting that you do not cut the tree on which you sit. She was asked how the respondent might have known about anything if she didn't report it, but she noted that her line manager gave her the job and any new employee who raised problems would be gotten rid of.  She noted that after his mother died the line managers behaviour got better for a few weeks and then got worse. She stated that she didn't want to lose her job.

It was noted to the witness that there was another manager who ran the HR department and she was asked if she reported it to him?  She said no as her line manager was friends outside of work with certain colleagues.  As regards the appeal meeting, she noted that the appeal decision maker gave her no time.  He also took months to issue a decision that he said he would issue in a week. It was put to her that the store manager is not the company and how would she expect the company to know, but she noted that she didn't say it to the higher management.

It was put to the complainant that they had a diversity and inclusion policy which included a toll-free hotline to report discrimination.  She was asked did she use it but stated no that she never met anyone in the company that she could trust.

It was put to the complainant that the occupational health report suggested a phased return to work in two months, but she noted that the respondent’s representative was wrong.  It was then put to her that she had still not obtained medical intervention two months later, but she stated that she went to four different GP's but couldn't get seen. She said that she started exercising herself which made it worse, and she also injected herself with medication that she ordered over the Internet. She stated that up to this she was not in a position to return to work or to commit to return to work.  She stated that the respondent could have chosen to pay for physiotherapy up to the end of October.

She stated that she wasn't given the details of how to appeal the decision to dismiss her.  However, it was put to her that she was provided with an e-mail address to make an appeal in the termination letter. It was put to her that she was offered an alternative position, and she indicated that she was not fit to undertake the alternative position. It was put to her that the company sent her on an occupational health assessment and what else could they have done to which she replied that they could have paid for physiotherapy.

Under redirection, she was asked why she never took a grievance and she stated that she wanted to keep her job. She noted that she had a hope that the appeal decision maker would listen to her, but she felt zero compassion from him. She also noted that she didn't know who would deal with a grievance.

The respondent submitted that it refutes the complainants claims in their entirety. In addition, it submitted that victimisation and discriminatory treatment fall outside of the prescribed 6-month period within which to take a complaint. The respondent submitted that the complainant submission is vague, it does not provide detail regarding timelines or detailed allegations.  The respondent also suggested that consideration should be taken of the fact that the complainant was away from the workplace on medical grounds from 22 January to 17 February 2020, she returned to the workplace for a week and thereafter took annual leave which was followed by her absence on medical grounds from 2 March 2020. She never returned to work thereafter and her employment was terminated on 12 August 2020. As the time frame for taking a complaint is 6 months prior to the date of submission, and the respondent is arguing that there was no reason why the complainant could not have pursued those claims within the timeframes, it was submitted that there is a limit as to what events can be considered.

The respondents submitted that the complainant's health issues began to emerge in early 2020 when the complainant was absent from work on medical grounds. She returned briefly and thereafter did not return to the workplace. Throughout this time the respondent made efforts to support the complainant while she was absent from the workplace. This included frequent welfare meetings, conducted at the convenience of the complainant, where she was given the opportunity to communicate how she was feeling provide an update on her health, indicate when she may feel capable of returning to work and make any suggestion for reasonable accommodations which could be provided to assist in that aim.

The respondent submitted that the complainant indicated in March 2020 that the reason for her absence was persistent back pain but also indicated anxiety regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. She informed the respondent that her GP had advised her to do stretches and go on walks but due to COVID-19 she was afraid of walking. She was asked when she might be able to return to work but provided no time frame noting that she was reluctant to do so due to the pandemic. She was asked whether there were any adjustments that the company could make to enable her to return but indicated that they were none.

The respondent submitted that a number of welfare meetings where undertaken which followed the same format.  At each meeting she was asked what adjustment the respondent could take but she repeatedly indicated that none could be taken.  The respondent submitted documentation in support of this.  The respondent sent the complainant to see an occupational health specialist.  The subsequent report was discussed with the complainant who indicated that she could not afford the course of treatment recommended by the doctor.

The respondent held a series of capability investigation meetings in June July and August 2020 indication to the complainant that the occupational health report suggested that she would be able to attend work within two months. She was asked what efforts she had made to get treatment or to get physiotherapy, but she indicated that she had not made any efforts as she was on a waiting list. The respondent was asked if she could return to work, even on a phased basis, working on the tills as she herself had suggested but she indicated that she could not return until she received physiotherapy. She remained unsure as to when she would be able to get physiotherapy.

The respondent noted that it was only in the final meeting in August that she indicated that she had injured her back at work.

The respondent submitted that it evaluated the complainants’ submissions on her continued incapability to return to work due to ill health with no indicated date of recovery or fitness. The respondent terminated the complainant’s employment on grounds of capability due to long term health issues, and this was confirmed to her in a letter of 26 August 2020. She was offered the opportunity to appeal the decision.

The respondent submitted that the appeal meeting was held in October by the area manager. At the meeting the complainant confirmed that she had still not received any treatments for her condition including physiotherapy or an MRI scan. In the meeting she again described severe levels of pain that she's experiencing. She was asked had the respondent could support her in carrying out her role or a different role, such as sales assistant, but the complainant indicated that she was not able to carry out any role in the absence of physiotherapy.

The respondent submitted that at no stage prior to her dismissal did the complainant ever raise any complaint or grievance with the respondent, either formally or informally about victimisation and/or discriminatory treatment.  The respondent submitted that given the complainant's position as duty manager she was aware of their policies and procedures. It was submitted that it is trite law that employees are expected to act reasonably in their dealings with their employers. As far as grievances are concerned employees have a responsibility to exhaust internal procedures to resolve those grievances. It was submitted that it goes against the principles of a grievance procedure that an employee should ignore an internal policy and only raise a grievance to an external third party. This denies an employer an opportunity to address the matter complained of.

The Respondent made a factual evaluation, based on available medical information at the time as well as the complainant’s submissions. The complainant was provided with time and opportunity to support her to get back to work. This entailed time to seek medical attention. When the Respondent met with her it noted that she had repeatedly not complied with medical advice and had failed to obtain or undergo the therapy that was medically recommended to her. The Respondent was confident, at the time of taking the termination decision, that she was unfit to return to work and continue with her duties.

The respondent cited the following cases in support of its position:

McCormack v Dunnes Stores, UD 1421/2008,

Conway v Ulster Bank, UD474/1981,

Travers v MBNA Ireland Limited, UD720/2006,

Martin Barry v Board of Management, St Oliver Plunkett School UD93/2006,

Bolger v Showerings (Ireland) Limited, ELR 184,

Reardon v St. Vincent’s Hospital, UD74/79,

Health and Fitness Club v A Worker EDD-037,

Margetts v Graham Anthony & Company Limited, EDA038,

National Gallery of Ireland v Frances Donnelly EDA 1312,

Asti v John Dunbar EDA 1128,

Nano Nagle School v Daly [2019] IESC 63,

Rotunda Hospital v Siobhan McNally EDA2148, and

Health Services Executive v Marie O’Shea EDA2227.

Summary of witness testimony:

The first witness for the respondent was the area manager. He stated that he had a business relationship with about 14 store managers. He noted that the complainant's line manager left the respondent employment long before the final hearing of the complaint. He was asked would he have dealt with any of the duty managers and said yes, he would have, he would have engaged with whoever was available when he visited and that there were usually three duty managers.

It was put to the witness that if a duty manager had a problem with the store manager what procedures would he expect them to follow. He said he would expect them to follow policy and that it indicated that they should contact him, human resource is or make direct contact with the helpline. He noted that he never received a complaint.  He stated that he knows now that the complainant had issues and took some time off due to illness but noted that the respondents supported her through the process. He noted that there is a long-term absence procedure that over four- or five-months welfare meetings and a phased return to work would usually take place.

The witness didn't agree that he rushed the complainant through the appeal but noted that he would have given her the time she needed. He was asked was there anything new to consider in relation to the appeal, but he said that he could see no real change in the intervening months, no progress had been made, and she was still awaiting treatment. When asked how this affected her position, he noted that that as there was no change, it was a struggle to explore or proceed any further. He stated that he picked up on the discussion of an alternative position, possibly of a phased return but noted that she was direct and said that they would fire her from that position too. The witness noted that the complainant came across as “a wee bit defensive” and that matters couldn't be progressed any further. He noted that he discussed an alternative role, but she declined that and confirmed that she was not able to return to her original role.

Under cross examination the witness confirmed that he only came into the process at a later stage. When asked did he see this store manager on a regular basis, was there a close relationship, he replied no, that he spoke to him maybe twice a week and was in the store once every three weeks. He noted that the store manager seemed to run a really good store with a good atmosphere over the four or five years that he worked there. He confirmed that he was not aware of any concerns between the complainant and her manager. He also stated that there were no specifics or times given him to investigate or to look into, he simply conducted an appeal of the decision 26th August 2020.

It was put to the witness that her line manager was systematically forcing her to get treatment however he noted that there was no evidence to support those contentions in her appeal. It was put in that not taking on board the complainant submissions as part of her appeal fundamentally undermines fair procedures. It was noted that her financial situation was ignored as outlined in the appeal and she noted that she sought assistance accessing private physiotherapy. 

The witness was asked whether he read the complainants submission for the appeal, and he stated that he did and noted that during Covid time things was difficult. He was asked was it reasonable to use her waiting for physiotherapy in the context of the pandemic as a ground for her dismissal and stated that it was. It was put to him that there was a misinterpretation of the capability occupational health report in that the respondent considered that the report said she would be able to return to work but merely made the suggestion.

It was also put to the witness that the complainant was not offered the position of sales assistant but was asked whether she was fit to do the job but was not given an open-ended job offer. It was still only an offer on the basis whether she was fit or healthy to do the job.

It was put to him that dismissal due to a medical condition was an unreasonable ground for dismissal and that there was no reference or no record of having considered the matters. The witness confirmed that his appeal was on the basis of capability to do the job.

Under redirection the witness was asked whether all aspects of the alternative position were explored and confirmed that they were He confirmed that she was not interested in an alternative position as she thought she would be dismissed from that.

The complainant put forward a case under the Employment Equality Act based on four separate complaints: a claim for discriminatory dismissal, a claim for discrimination in its own right, a claim for victimisation and a claim for a failure to provide reasonable accommodation.  The complaint was lodged on 16 December 2020 and no submission was made to extend the time frame for the consideration of the complaints. 

Section 77(5) of the Employment Equality Act states as follows:

(5) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), a claim for redress in respect of discrimination or victimisation may not be referred under this section after the end of the period of 6 months from the date of occurrence of the discrimination or victimisation to which the case relates or, as the case may be, the date of its most recent occurrence.

(b) On application by a complainant the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission or Circuit Court, as the case may be, may, for reasonable cause, direct that in relation to the complainant paragraph (a) shall have effect as if for the reference to a period of 6 months there were substituted a reference to such period not exceeding 12 months as is specified in the direction; and, where such a direction is given, this Part shall have effect accordingly.

 (c) This subsection does not apply in relation to a claim not to be receiving remuneration in accordance with an equal remuneration term.

Accordingly, the cognisant period for the purposes of the Act is the six months prior to 16 December 2020, that is from 17 June 2020.

On 17 June 2020, the respondent invited the complainant to a capability investigation meeting to discuss the contents of an Occupational Health report.  From this point onwards, all matters arising fall to be considered in respect of this complaint.

Although the complainant put forward a complaint in relation to discriminatory dismissal and discrimination, a claim for victimisation and a claim for a failure to provide reasonable accommodation in the original complaint form, the only reference made within that form was to the existence of a disability. The complainant completed a manual complaint form and provided a level of detail regarding discrimination and disability. She did not reference discrimination on the basis of her race in the initial complaint form.  When the complainant’s legal representative came on record, it provided an initial clarifying submission, that submission makes no reference to any protected ground other than disability.  However shortly before the hearing the complainant’s representative made reference to the protected ground of race in further submissions.  In addition, the complainant gave evidence in relation to the race ground too.  The respondent dealt with both race and disability in their submissions.

In her evidence the complainant outlined being on the receiving end of a series of what is possibly discriminatory treatment.  This “continuous pattern of severe degradation, humiliation, abuse and wilful mistreatment at the hands of her line manager” was not linked to any timeframe other than to say that it was continuous from when she started work in August 2018 and during her employment onsite.  However, the complainant did not work after March 2020 and only lodged her complaint in December.  Accordingly, she made no reference to discriminatory treatment or victimisation during the 6-month period recognised by the Act.

During the complainant’s evidence, she seemed to forget basic details, did not provide dates for alleged mistreatment – even lose timeframes to try to anchor events to a possible timeframe, and appeared to be adding details to her evidence that were not noted down in her submissions.  When this is taken with a lack of any independent testimony or any contemporaneous paperwork, I did not find her to be a particularly credible witness.

Accordingly, I find that the complainant has not established discriminatory treatment or victimisation occurred within the 6 months required by the legislation.

As regards reasonable accommodation, I note that the complainant was asked repeatedly by the respondent (on a monthly basis) if there was any adjustment that the respondent could take to enable the complainant to return to work but she repeatedly indicated that none could be taken.  She was also offered a phased return to work and alternative employment.  Each of these measures is noted in contemporaneous documentation, the issue of adjustments seems to have been raised on a monthly basis from March onwards.  She was also asked if she could return or foresee a return to work, but repeatedly indicated that she could not.  Accordingly, I find that the respondent considered the possibility of providing reasonable accommodations, the complainant did not seek anything.

The complainant submitted that she was discriminatorily dismissed and suggested that this was on the basis of her race and disability.  The respondent for its part was insistent that the complainant was dismissed for not being capable of doing her job.

Section 16 of the Employment Equality Act deals with the nature and extend of an employer’s obligations in certain cases and it states as follows:

16.—(1) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as requiring any person to recruit or promote an individual to a position, to retain an individual in a position, or to provide training or experience to an individual in relation to a position, if the individual—

(a) will not undertake (or, as the case may be, continue to undertake) the duties attached to that position or will not accept (or, as the case may be, continue to accept) the conditions under which those duties are, or may be required to be, performed, or

(b) is not (or, as the case may be, is no longer) fully competent and available to undertake, and fully capable of undertaking, the duties attached to that position, having regard to the conditions under which those duties are, or may be required to be, performed.

(2) In relation to—

(a) the provision by an employment agency of services or guidance to an individual in relation to employment in a position,

(b) the offer to an individual of a course of vocational training or any related facility directed towards employment in a position, and

(c) the admission of an individual to membership of a regulatory body or into a profession, vocation or occupation controlled by a regulatory body,

subsection (1) shall apply, with any necessary modification, as it applies to the recruitment of an individual to a position.

(3) (a) For the purposes of this Act a person who has a disability is fully competent to undertake, and fully capable of undertaking, any duties if the person would be so fully competent and capable on reasonable accommodation (in this subsection referred to as "appropriate measures") being provided by the person’s employer.

(b) The employer shall take appropriate measures, where needed in a particular case, to enable a person who has a disability—

(i) to have access to employment,

(ii) to participate or advance in employment, or

(iii) to undergo training,

unless the measures would impose a disproportionate burden on the employer.

(c) In determining whether the measures would impose such a burden account shall be taken, in particular, of—

(i) the financial and other costs entailed,

(ii) the scale and financial resources of the employer’s business, and

(iii) the possibility of obtaining public funding or other assistance.]

(4) In subsection (3)—

"appropriate measures", in relation to a person with a disability—

(a) means effective and practical measures, where needed in a particular case, to adapt the employer’s place of business to the disability concerned,

(b) without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a), includes the adaptation of premises and equipment, patterns of working time, distribution of tasks or the provision of training or integration resources, but

(c) does not include any treatment, facility or thing that the person might ordinarily or reasonably provide for himself or herself;

“employer” includes an employment agency, a person offering a course of vocational training as mentioned in section 12(1) and a regulatory body; and accordingly references to a person who has a disability include—

(a) such a person who is seeking or using any service provided by the employment agency,

(b) such a person who is participating in any such course or facility as is referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 12(1), and

(c) such a person who is a member of or is seeking membership of the regulatory body.

…

(5) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as requiring an employer to recruit, retain in employment or promote an individual if the employer is aware, on the basis of a criminal conviction of the individual or other reliable information, that the individual engages, or has a propensity to engage, in any form of sexual behaviour which is unlawful.

(6) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (5), that subsection applies in particular where the employment concerned involves access to minors or to other persons who are vulnerable.

The complainant submitted that she suffered from back pain and that this amounted to a disability.  In Section 2 of the Act, disability is defined as follows:

“disability” means—

(a) the total or partial absence of a person’s bodily or mental functions, including the absence of a part of a person’s body,

(b) the presence in the body of organisms causing, or likely to cause, chronic disease or illness,

(c) the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of a person’s body,

(d) a condition or malfunction which results in a person learning differently from a person without the condition or malfunction, or

(e) a condition, illness or disease which affects a person’s thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgement or which results in disturbed behaviour,

and shall be taken to include a disability which exists at present, or which previously existed but no longer exists, or which may exist in the future or which is imputed to a person;

The only medical complaint notified to the employer and mentioned at the hearing was back pain and a certain amount of anxiety related to Covid 19.  Having regard to the evidence and documentation presented at the hearing, I find that the medical complaints put forward by the complaint do not come within a disability as defined in the Act. 

Notwithstanding my concerns on the nature of the disability, I note that the respondent repeatedly asked the complainant if there were any adjustments that it could make to enable the complainant to return to employment, she repeatedly indicated that there were none.  At the hearing the complainant suggested that the respondent could have paid for physiotherapy for her.  However, Section 16(4)(c) specifically excludes ‘treatment, facility or thing that the person might ordinarily or reasonably provide for himself or herself’ from appropriate measures (reasonable accommodation).  The complainant also repeatedly noted that she had not sought treatment for her medical issues.

The complainant submitted that she was discriminatorily dismissed, the respondent provided reasons as to why the dismissal falls within the provisions of the Act.  Having regard to all the written and oral evidence put forward by the parties, I am satisfied that the dismissal took place with the constraints of the legislation and that the  complainant was not discriminatorily dismissed.

Accordingly, I find that the complainant was not subject to discriminatory treatment contrary to the Employment Equality Act.

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complainant was not subjected to discriminatory treatment contrary to the Act.

Employment Equality – legislative time limits – race – disability - victimisation – reasonable accommodation – discriminatory dismissal – not treated contrary to the Act.