ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057173
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Sal Tarhuni | West Wood Club Clontarf |
Representatives | Sal Tarhuni | Peter Duff Peter Duff & Co. Solicitors |
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-00069537-001 | 25/02/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/10/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Procedure:
In accordance with 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.
Background:
The Complainant sent his ES 1 form to the Respondent on the 7th of March 2025. He claimed that the Gym had discriminated against him. He failed to tick any ground on the form. He stated that the basis of his complaint related to the fact the club had cancelled his membership. He was given no reason for the cancellation.
The Respondent did reply and on the Reply Notification Form dated the 11th of March 2025 and stated that due to alleged rudeness and an aggressive manner his membership was cancelled.
The Complainant lodge his complaint form with the Commission on the 25th of February 2025 and in this form alleged that the ground of discrimination was Civil Status.
Civil Status is defined as: civil status’ means being single, married, separated, divorced, widowed, in a civil partnership within the meaning of the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010 or being a former civil partner in a civil partnership that has ended by death or been dissolved
The Act defines discrimination as: 3.—For the purposes of this Act discrimination shall be taken to occur— (a) where a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation F10[on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) or, if appropriate, subsection (3B), (in this Act referred to as the ‘discriminatory grounds’) which— (i) exists, (ii) existed but no longer exists, (iii) may exist in the future, or (iv) is imputed to the person concerned,
The Complainant has not particularised his complaint so that the Respondent would know why the ground of civil status was chosen and the facts to support such a claim.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant detailed no ground in the ES 1 Form to the Respondent. He did detail a ground in the form sent to the Commission. However, he provided no detail about the ground of complaint and why he chose that complaint. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent stated that no prima facie case has been made out as the Complainant has failed to detail why he chose civil status as the ground to bring this claim |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant was asked to explain why he chose civil status as his ground of complaint under the Act. He stated he didn’t understand what it meant and that he would be taking legal advice about his claim against the Respondent. As no prima facie case has been made out I determine that the Respondent has not engaged in prohibited conduct. |
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.
The complaint is not well founded. The Complainant was asked to explain why he chose civil status as his ground of complaint under the Act. He stated he didn’t understand what it meant and that he would be taking legal advice about his claim against the Respondent. As no prima facie case has been made out, I determine that the Respondent has not engaged in prohibited conduct. |
Dated: 11-11-25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Key Words:
No Prima Facie case |