Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Kevwe  Koroma

Rfc Security ltd

(amended on consent)

Representatives

Ade Olanrewaju, Advocate, AC, Ireland, Cork.

Magdelena Connolly, Human Resource Dept.

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00057844-001

22/07/2023

On 22 July 2023, the WRC received a complaint of Discrimination in relation to provision of goods/ services against the respondent security company. The Complainant introduced herself as Mrs. Kevwe Koroma, an Irish Carer and lay litigant. No special facilities were sought when attending a hearing.

The ES1 form was mentioned as having been notified on 30 November 2022 but was not exhibited.

Ms. Koroma had not received an ES2 in response.

The first incident of discrimination was listed as 24 November 2022.

The most recent date of discrimination was listed as 23 December 2022.

On 31 July 2023, the WRC alerted the Complainant that her claim.

 “Does not fall within the 6-month statutory timeline”.

 She was invited to make a submission on reasonable cause.

On 14 December 2023, Mr. Olanrewaju, as an apparent representative, applied for an extension.

 “On the grounds that I submitted an application via your web site in May 2023 and June 2023 but due to technical error or network problem, I discovered it was not received “

He added that he had tried to resolve the matter through the ES1 form but had not received a response. 

The case was scheduled initially for Dublin. The Complainant secured a postponement for the 19 March 2024 hearing. The Respondent received a postponement of the hearing scheduled for July 1, 2024.

The Respondent submitted prehearing submissions as requested on 15 March 2024.

The Complainant via her representative sent details a reported breach of Data Regulations by a named supermarket, (not a visible party in this case) and the respondent on 3 April 2024. This did not constitute the requested WRC submission.

On 6 January 2025, both parties were invited to attend an in-person hearing in the WRC office, Cork, set for 24 February 2025.

On 30 January 2025, the Respondent sought to present by Webex, and this was facilitated for Commercial reasons. The Complainant had not identified a representative on her complaint form and had received notification of hearing from her home. However, Mr. Olaninewaju presented as her representative when he wrote to the WRC on 18 February 2025, objecting to this concession to the Respondent.

“However, the case is for hearing on the 24/02/2025 you are sending me an email today 18/02/2025 that the respondent requested for hybrid hearing and was granted without seeking any consent me. I will object to that hybrid hearing on the grounds of no fair hearing. Everybody is equal before the law. I am of the opinion of unfairness or injustice in this matter. Equality before the law stated I cannot be treated as inferior or superior to any other person/company in society simply because of my human attributes or my ethnic, racial, social or religious background. Kind regards Ade Olanrewaju”

He did not mention his client’s name.

On 17 February 2025, I wrote to the Complainant seeking:

1 an outline submission under the Equal Status Act 2000.

2 Copy of ES1 dated 30 November 2022.

3 Documentation that linked the car exhibited by submitted photograph to the complainant.

4 Appeal of Clamping fee

This was copied to the Respondent. I did not receive any response to my request.

The Respondent presented at hearing and was represented by Magdelena Connolly and Stephen Bowles.

The Complainant did not attend the hearing. Mr.  Olaninewaju attended.

I repeated my request for the ES1 form, which was received from both parties’ post hearing. This did not generate further commentary from either party.

CA-00057844-001 Complaint under Equal Status Act 2000.

The Complainant has submitted a complaint of Discrimination on grounds of Race. On the morning of the hearing, her representative clarified that it was not her intention to advance the second listed aspect of the complaint on Accommodation.

The Complainant submitted the narrative in her complaint form dated 22 July 2023 as:

“I parked my car in a parking space in Lidl retail store mallow and one other car parked as I parked who is white Irish …. she was release without any fine why I was forced to paid 120(pounds) why the Irish was released free in my present. Even when I told them I have sick son to take to hospital “

I have detailed this complaint in unedited form as these are the only words, written or oral, which I received from the complainant in this case.

The Complainant did not attend the hearing in her own case. She did not apply for a postponement in advance of the hearing.

Application to Adjourn the hearing of 24 February 2025

The Complainants representative confirmed that the complainant was not attending the hearing as she had experienced a personal bereavement in the last couple of weeks.

The Complainants representative submitted that he was incensed that the Respondent had been permitted to appear by video link, and he ought to have been informed. He had just arrived back from North America at 5 am.

He sought an adjournment as the complainant had not been permitted to appear online.

He stated that the complainant’s personal bereavement had occurred two weeks ago on Friday. He did not have any documents or medical certificates to accompany this application.

I asked for comment on the failure to respond to my request for prehearing submission, but this was not responded to.

I explained the test for exceptional circumstances necessary for an adjournment at hearing.

My response:

I took some time to consider the application and the respondent response.

1 I informed the parties present that this was a public hearing. Both Parties were invited to attend. The WRC carries a discretion to host a party / witness on the hybrid screen, in the meeting room where we were congregated.

2 As a known representative at WRC, the postponement procedure, prehearing was known to the complainant representative and was not utilised.

2A The Complainants representative had not brought any documentation to hearing to validate the complainant’s absence through bereavement.

3 The events at the centre of the case were over two years old.

4 The Equal Status Act 2000 provides for accommodation of a   representative, but not their substitution for a complainant, on whom the burden of proof lies.

25A.—A party (whether complainant or respondent) to proceedings under section 24 or 25 may be represented by any individual or body authorised by the party in that behalf.

5 The Complainant had not prepared for hearing and had not responded to my requests for documentation.

I refused the adjournment and confirmed that I wished to press on with the hearing.

 I offered a break, but Parties decided to press on to address the topic of the Statutory Limitation period:

Substantive case: Statutory Time Limits

I explained the test in Section 21 and in relation to reasonable cause. Cementation Skanska, at the Labour Court.

Mr Olanrewaju outlined that in the course of advising his client, Ms Koroma on another matter, that he was present in the car park of Lidl Mallow on 24 November 2022.

He acknowledged that he is running 400 -1000 live cases.

He said that the complainant rang him to say she was clamped, and he paid the car fine for her.

He told the hearing this was a complainant of race discrimination following an incident on 24 November 2024. The ES1 form was not registered.

He had previously submitted that car registration number 131D20309 was unlawfully clamped as the clamping notice did not have any enforcement number nor was the car in a prohibited area.

He had stated that both he, his daughter and the car owner would give evidence in the case.

He had written that if car registration 172C6503 “who is white Irish should be refund while he or she appealed. I don’t know why he or she should be favourable than I as a black Irish was not refunded. “

Mr Olanrewaju thought he had sent in the WRC complaint much earlier than July 2023.

I asked him what were the circumstances of his July 2023 call with the WRC Information service? He said that his ES1 form had been ignored, and he would need to seek an extension in time.

I asked if there were any circumstances which delayed his client from sending in her complaint to the WRC.? None were presented. Mr Olanrewaju said Ms Koroma was not a relative of his, he knew her only through business.

He said that he had paid Ms Koroma’s’ fine and was seeking recompense through the WRC.

The Respondent operates a security services and car park management business. The Respondent accepts that the complainant, Ms Kevwe Koroma was subject to having had her car clamped on 24 November 2023. The Respondent denies that she was Discriminated against on race grounds.

The Respondent was commissioned by Lidl Ireland to oversee the management of parking at the supermarket.

The Respondent outlined that the car had been rendered immobile due to violation of the parking regulations in a private car park i.e. parked in a yellow box.

The sanction was subject of appeal, which was unsuccessful due to “failed to present sufficient evidence or rationale to warrant approval or acceptance of the appeal “

The Respondent concluded that the complainant had not substantiated any evidence to support her assertion of discrimination. The Respondent has denied less favourable treatment.

The Respondent exhibited the Signage (clamping and towing in operation) in this car park.

Five vehicles were clamped between 10.15am -12.28 hrs on 24 November 2022. Photographs of 131D20309 were exhibited superimposed on an apparent gridded box.

The Respondent exhibited a record of the appeal dated 23 December 2022 directed to Mr Olanrewaju and not the complainant.

Application to adjourn the hearing

The Respondent opposed the application to adjourn as the matter had “gone on too long “

Substantive case:

The Respondent linked the furnishing of the ES1 to the 2nd internal appeal on 4 January 2023 which was signed by Mr Olanrewaju.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainants representative must have been aware of the statutory limitation period which did not excuse or explain his delay. They added that the Respondent was not prejudiced by the delay.

The Respondent raised a suspicion at the manner in which the ES1 was tagged onto to an operational appeal, one of two appeals, the second to the NTA. It seems that the complainant has also raised a cause of action against the Lidl supermarket.

The Respondent submitted that the claim should fail.

The ES1 is meant to be sent by registered mail.

I have been requested to reach a Decision on the claim of Discrimination on grounds of race under the Equal Status Act 2000.

In reaching my decision for the written papers of both parties, ES1 secured post hearing and the oral submissions from the representatives at hearing.

Section 2 provides a helpful guidance on Prohibited conduct.

“Prohibited conduct” means discrimination against, or sexual harassment or harassment of, or permitting the sexual harassment or harassment of, a person in contravention of this Act.

The issue in this case concerns a parked car which was clamped by the Respondent during 24 November 2022. The Complainant, on whom the burden of proof rests is faced with the statutory requirements of Section 38A of the Act.

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.

The Complainant has not attended the hearing to open her case from where I may or may not have been able to infer that prohibited conduct occurred.

The Respondent came to hearing and rejected the claim.

For my part, I learned of the Vehicle Clamping Act, 2015, which provides a statutory framework for clamping in statutory and non-statutory settings.

The circumstances of this case are attributed by both parties to a private car park.

My jurisdiction and resultant authority in this case is derived from

Redress in respect of prohibited conduct.

21.— (1) A person who claims that prohibited conduct has been directed against him or her may, subject to this section, seek redress by referring the case to the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission.

(1A) If the grounds for such a claim as is referred to in subsection (1) arise—

(a) on the gender ground, or

(b) in any other circumstances (including circumstances amounting to victimisation) to which the Gender Goods and Services Directive is relevant,

then, subject to subsections (2) to (7) and (8) to (11), the person making the claim may seek redress by referring the case to the Circuit Court instead of referring the case to the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission under subsection (1) (and, if the case is referred to the Circuit Court, no further appeal lies, other than an appeal to the High Court on a point of law).]

(2) Before seeking redress under this section, the complainant—

(a) shall, within 2 months after the prohibited conducted is alleged to have occurred, or, where more than one incident of prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred, within 2 months after the last such occurrence, notify the respondent in writing of—

(i) the nature of the allegation,

(ii) the complainant’s intention, if not satisfied with the respondent’s response to the allegation, to seek redress under this Act,

and

(b) may in that notification, with a view to assisting the complainant in deciding whether to refer the case to the Director of the Workplace Relations Commissionor, as the case may be, the Circuit Court, question the respondent in writing so as to obtain material information and the respondent may, if the respondent so wishes, reply to any such questions.

I am satisfied that the ES1 form was signed by the Complainants representative on 4 January 2023 and forwarded with the second appeal to the National Transport Authority on that date.

It was not sent registered post.

It was not responded to by the Respondent.

The notification complies with the provisions of Section 21 (2)(A) but should have been attached to the WRC complaint form. I have found the date of 30 November 2022, relied on by the complainant on her complaint form as the date of ES1 notification to be erroneous and misleading.

This claim was submitted to WRC on 22 July 2023 at 17.15 hrs as a contravention of the Equal Status Act, 2000.

The claim is in immediate difficulty on statutory time limits as set down in Section 21(6) of the Act as the date of occurrence for the prohibited conduct submitted by the complainant was 24 November 2022.

(6) (a) Subject to subsections (3)(a)(ii) and (7), a claim for redress in respect of prohibited conduct may not be referred under this section after the end of the period of 6 months from the date of the occurrence of the prohibited conduct 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 of the Workplace Relations Commissionor, as the case may be, the Circuit Court 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.

(7) Where a delay by a complainant in referring a case under this Act is due to any misrepresentation by the respondent, subsection (6)(a) shall apply as if the references to the date of occurrence of prohibited conduct were references to the date on which the misrepresentation came to the complainant’s notice.

I heard an application from the Complainants representative to extend time to 12 months as referred to in Section 21(6) (b).

The Respondent opposed the application. They did accept that the company was not prejudiced by the delay.

The Complainant has not come to hearing to open her claim. She has not given me an opportunity to take evidence on the reason for her delay.

Mr Olanrewaju signed the ES1 form in January 2023, and he could not point to any explanation, excuse, or reason for the delay in the WRC receiving this complaint.

This comes into sharp focus when I consider that Mr Olanrewaju was engaged in correspondence on data protection legislation during the same period with the same respondent.

I have considered the application to extend time, however, I have not heard any compelling reason for me to extend time on this occasion.

I saw this as the Complainants representative was very clear that he came to hearing to recover the €120.00 he apparently paid to release the clamp on 24 November 2022.

I would have liked to have met the complainant and heard her evidence. However, I have not been assisted by the complainant side in realising this goal. I provided an opportunity for her to be heard and provide written submissions, to no avail.

I cannot issue a Direction to extend time to 12 months.

I found that the Respondent ought to have been more responsive once the ES1 form came to light in January/February 2023, albeit that it arrived in a circuitous manner, attached to an external appeal to NTA. However, I have not found misrepresentation by them.

I find that this is a situation, where I need to draw on my delegated, but seldom used powers in Section 22 of the Act, as I have decided to dismiss this claim.

Dismissal of claims.

22.— (1) The Director of the Workplace Relations Commission may dismiss a claim at any stage if of opinion that it has been made in bad faith or is frivolous, vexatious or misconceived or relates to a trivial matter.

(2) Not later than 42 days after the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission dismisses a claim under this section, the complainant may appeal against the decision to the Circuit Court on notice to the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission specifying the grounds of the appeal.

(3) On appeal the Court may affirm or quash the decision.

(4) No further appeal lies, other than an appeal to the High Court on a point of law.

I have established that the claim before me is misconceived.

 I have not found the complainant present in her own claim so as to assist in satisfying the necessary burden of proof, Section 38 A, of the Act. I have received push back as I sought to secure prehearing submissions from her.

Instead, the complainant’s representative has sought a refund of the €120.00, he apparently paid to release the clamp on November 24, 2022, through the WRC, without any documentation of payment by him or any submissions which captured the connection with less favourable treatment on grounds of race on behalf of Mrs Koroma. This demonstrates the misconceived nature of the claim .

The claim is also outside the permitted statutory time limits allowed, without excuse or explanation.

I dismiss the claim as misconceived.

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 dismiss the claim as misconceived in accordance with my powers permitted in Section 22(1) of the Act.

Nonappearance of the named complainant at hearing. Dismissal of claim.