ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058910
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Nadine Lattimore | Ard Services Ltd |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties |
|
|
Representatives |
| Adrian Flynn In House Legal |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00071591-001 | 14/05/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/09/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 21 of the Equal Status Act 2000 (as amended) an individual may seek redress in respect of any prohibited conduct that has been directed against him or her by referring a case to the Workplace Relations Commission. It is a condition precedent to bringing any such matter before the Workplace Relations Commission that the individual complainant shall have already notified the Respondent in writing (usually in the form of an ES 1) of the nature of the allegation and the intention to seek such redress if the Complainant is not satisfied with the Respondent’s response. This Notice in writing shall be brought within two months of the said prohibited conduct or within two months of the last instance of same.
Pursuant to Section 25 of the Equal Status Act 2000 I have had the within matter referred to me by the Director General for the purpose of conducting an investigation into claims of discrimination and I have heard, where appropriate, the interested parties. I have also considered any relevant documentation provided in advance of the hearing and also anything provided in the course of the hearing. At the conclusion of any such investigation I am obliged to make a decision and, if I should find in favour of the Complainant, I shall provide for redress (s.25 (4)).
Generally, discrimination under this Act – per Section 3 - is taken to have occurred where a person is treated less favourably than another person is (or would be) treated in a comparable situation and by reason of any of the discriminatory grounds (as specified).
Broadly, the Equal Status Act prohibits discrimination in the context of buying and selling goods from and to the public (or a section thereof) and also prohibits discrimination in the context of using and providing services available to the public (or a section thereof). The service is not necessarily being provided for consideration.
Section 5 (1) prohibits discrimination in the following terms:-
“A person shall not discriminate in disposing of goods to the public generally or a section of the public or in providing a service, whether the disposal or provision is for consideration or otherwise and whether the service provided can be availed of only by a section of the public.”
In relation to the applicable burden of proof, Section 38A of the Acts is applicable to all complaints of discrimination under the Equal Status Acts and requires the Complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts from which a discrimination can be inferred. It is only when such a prima facie case has been established that the onus shifts to the Respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination.
The Section reads:-
38A.—(1) Where in any proceedings 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.
(2) This section is without prejudice to any other enactment or rule of law in relation to the burden of proof in any proceedings which may be more favourable to the person.
This principle is clearly enunciated in the equivalent provision in the Employment Equality Act under discussion in the case of Melbury Developments Limited -v- Valpeters [2010] 21 ELR 64 :
“Section 85A of the Act provides for the allocation of the probative burden in cases within its ambit. This requires that the Complainant must first establish facts from which discrimination must be inferred. What those facts are will vary from case to case and there is no closed category of facts which can be relied upon. All that is required is that they be of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination. However, they must be established as facts on credible evidence. Mere speculation or assertions, unsupported by evidence cannot be elevated to a factual basis upon which an inference of discrimination can be drawn. Section 85A places the burden of establishing the primary facts fairly and squarely on the Complainant and language of this provision admits no exception to that evidential rule.”
Under Section 27(1) of the Act redress may be ordered where there has been a finding in favour of the Complainant. The Act allows for an order for compensation (up to a maximum amount) for the effects of the prohibited conduct. The Adjudication Officer can direct that a person or persons take a specified course of action. For example, the AO can also order that the service provider has to do something aimed at ensuring that similar discrimination does not happen again. For example, to take a specific course of action to upskill or train staff providing a service.
The maximum amount of compensation which can be awarded under the Equal Status Act is €15,000.00 (which is in line with the maximum award available in District Court contract cases per Section 27(2). In assessing compensation, I can consider the effect that the discriminatory treatment has had on the Complainant.
Background:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote hearing was set up and hosted by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff. I am satisfied that no party was prejudiced by having this hearing conducted remotely. I am also satisfied that I was in a position to fully exercise my function, and I made all relevant inquiries in the usual way. In response to the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021 ]IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021), I can confirm that the within hearing was open to the public so as to better demonstrate transparency in the administration of Justice. I additionally informed the parties that pursuant to the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 coming into effecton the 29th of July 2021 and in the event that there is a serious and direct conflict in evidence between the parties to a complaint then an oath or affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me. I confirm that I have administered the said Affirmation as appropriate. It is noted that the giving of false statement or evidence is an offence. The specific details of the complaint are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 14th of May 2025. In general terms, I will therefore be looking at an issue or issues that have arisen in the six-month period directly preceding this date.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was not represented and made her own case on affirmation. I was provided with a comprehensive submission dated the 27th day of August 2025 . The Complainant additionally relied on the submission set out in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which read: Location: Circle K, 49 Grafton Street, Dublin 2, D02 KP26 Date: 14th February 2025 Time: approx 14.20 By restricting my access while on the premises due to my Guide Dog AND/OR My right to enter the premises with my Guide Dog was questioned by a staff member or sub-contractor I was also provided with some photographs of the Complainant’s guide dog in full assistance paraphernalia. In the course of the hearing, it became apparent that the parties had CCTV footage of the interaction on the Respondent premises and I watched this footage at their request. No objection was raised to any of the materials relied upon by the Complainant in making her case. The evidence adduced by the Complainant was challenged as appropriate by the Respondent’s Representative. The Complainant alleges that she was discriminated against in accessing the service being provided by the Respondent entity. Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained by the Complainant in the first instance. Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent entity was represented by its own in-house legal representative. Two witnesses also presented to give evidence on behalf of the Respondent. All evidence was heard following an Affirmation. The Respondent witnesses were questioned by the Complainant. The Respondent rejects that it has discriminated against the Complainant in the provision of its service to the public. Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have carefully considered the evidence adduced by the parties herein. As noted by Mr. Flynn on behalf of the Respondent, the facts herein are largely agreed. The Complainant came onto the Respondent’s premises on Grafton Street on the afternoon of eh 14th of February 2025. The Complainant was accompanied by her five year old son and was also being guided by her Guide Dog – Pilot. The Complainant walked straight through the downstairs of the premises and went up the stairs to the first floor where a subway sandwich shop was operating. I have seen footage of the lay out. On reaching the top of the stairs the Complainant and her son make for a table where the little boy remained seated while the Complainant went up to the hot deli counter to order lunch. I noted from the video that the Complainant used a combination of holding Pilot by the harness only and/or by the lead only as she went about her business. The Complainant described the way her dog would imperceptibly veer in a given direction to ensure she does not bump into an obstacle. For example, a rope and post cordon which happened to be inexplicably in the middle of the Respondent’s floor was detected by Pilot who guided her away from. One other customer was ahead of her and he appears to have been paying. The Complainant waited at the other end of the service area waiting to have her order taken. At this point in time Pilot was on the lead and had placed himself a little away from the Complainant’s side where he stood quietly and patiently. One of the staff came out from behind the service area and from a distance of some five feet away from the Complainant addresses himself to her. The Complainant explained that it took her a second to gather that the man was addressing her. The Complainant further gathered that the member of staff wanted the dog moved. She understood him to say that the dog should be moved to the corner. The Complainant did not understand what the problem was, and it was not clear to which corner the dog should be removed. The Complainant’s son was seemingly sitting in a corner table and also there was a corner behind where the Complainant stood waiting to have her order taken. Looking at the footage myself, it is clear to me that Pilot may well have positioned himself slightly awkwardly for people coming up the stairs. However, the Complainant is clear that at no time was it stated that her dog was creating an access/egress hindrance, and in any event the Respondent never made this argument. At best, the approach made by a member of staff was clumsy. At worst, it was a misunderstanding of the nature of the relationship between the Complainant and her Guide dog. The Complainant was greatly upset for a number of reasons. In particular the Complainant feels that the obligation is on the service provider to ensure that its staff are better trained to understand that a guide dog is working for and on behalf of the blind person. The dog is not an accessory that can be put down and picked up at will. The dog gently guides the Complainant through every step on her way. If the dog was causing a hindrance, there would be no problem reigning him in, she said. However, that suggestion was never made. In fact, the suggestion here seemed to be that the dog should be either separated from the Complainant or pushed into a corner where he could not work for her. Both alternatives demonstrated, she says, a profound ignorance of the role of the guide dog. I know that the Complainant finds it very frustrating that whilst she is dealing with the profound disability of having no sight, she must also take passive aggressive remarks and suggestions from people with no insight into her condition and into the special relationship with her guide dog. Compounding the issue for her was the fact that her five-year-old son was there to see and witness the Complainant’s disability somehow being made an issue of. In the circumstances, the Complainant escalated the matter to the Manager who proceeded to tell the Complainant that there was a concern about the dog making other customers fearful. My sense is that this was a belated attempt to justify what had happened. I know that the Respondent Company greatly regrets that the Complainant was made to feel awkward or discriminated against. I appreciate that there is a significant effort put into ensuring that there is DEI training with the workforce. However, the HR witness did confirm that the role of the guide dog is not given any particular coverage.
|
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.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 CA-00071591-001 - The Complainant was discriminated against on the grounds of her disability and I award the Complainant €500.00 compensation. - I am directing that the Respondent take the necessary steps to positively educate its workforce on the role of the guide dog for the visually impaired.
|
Dated: 3rd November 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|