Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Fernando  Oliveira

Ryanair Dac

Representatives

Mr. Roland Rowan, BL instructed by Mr. Killian O’Reilly, Fieldfisher Ireland LLP

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00067305-001

11/11/2024

The Complainant is employed by the Respondent as a cabin crew member.  He alleged that he was discriminated against by the Respondent on the grounds of family status and race in relation to promotion, provision of training and conditions of employment.  The Complainant further alleged that he was victimised, harassed and sexually harassed in the Respondent workplace and that the most recent date of discrimination was 30 July 2024. 

The Respondent is one of Europe’s largest airlines, employing 27,000 staff across multiple jurisdictions in Europe and North Africa. The Respondent denied the allegation.  It was the Respondent position that the complaint should be subject to a determination on the preliminary issue that the complaint is an abuse of process being frivolous, vexatious and bound to fail.

In his complaint form, the Complainant stated that his supervisor had been harassing him since November 2023; that she had accused him of making racist comments, and that he didn’t like what she had said.  He stated that she made a false report against him, accusing him of drinking on the job, threatening another cabin crew, hitting passengers, and sexual harassment, and he alleged that she said he would follow her and kill her. The Complainant contended that he proved all these allegations were lies but that he never got promotion because of that.

The Complainant stated that in June of 2024 his supervisor used her friends to set him up; and that they provided false reports, saying that he would kill her, that he would hire a professional killer to kill her.  The Complainant stated that he had no criminal record in Portugal and Ireland because he had an airport ID, that he had a full background investigation by the gardai prior to taking up his position.

The Complainant contended that the situation caused him a lot of mental stress and that he was out of a job for 1 month.  He stated that he could not deal with the situation anymore, that the Respondent had never protected him, even though he had presented a few documents to confirm all his statements.  He stated that the Respondent had only protected the Supervisor and that he had been suspended with full payment initially.  He further stated that later his payment was removed as it was input into the system that he had requested unpaid leave.  He stated that this resulted in him being paid €1095 euros only for a month, leaving him “without dignity”.

The Complainant Submission – April 2025

The Complainant submitted that he was a Portuguese national of Brazilian origin, and that he had been employed by Ryanair as a cabin crew member since August 2022. The Complainant contended that he had faced systemic discrimination, harassment, and retaliation following false allegations by a colleague, (hereinafter referred to as Employee A), in November 2023.

The Complainant submitted that the key events included:

1.      False Allegations of Harassment: Employee A accused the Complainant of sexual harassment, aggression, and alcohol misuse. The Complainant submitted that these claims were disproven, yet Ryanair failed to investigate impartially or provide exculpatory witness statements

2.      Employee A made racist remarks about the complainant’s mother being “illegal in France”), which Ryanair dismissed.

3.      Coordinated Retaliation: Four anonymous reports (July 2024) accused the complainant of “threatening violence,” orchestrated by Employee A’s colleagues. No evidence was provided.

4.      Unfair Disciplinary Actions: A final written warning was issued for figurative language (“I wish she didn’t exist”), which the Complainant submitted was misrepresented as a threat.

5.      Career Blockage: Repeated denials of CSS course requests due to unproven allegations.

6.       Health and Safety Violations: Stress-induced prescriptions (melatonin, trazodone) ignored by Ryanair.

7.      Discriminatory Bag Search: Targeted search on 10 January 2025, violating Ryanair’s “random check” policy.

The Complainant submitted that Employee A’s racist remarks about the complainant’s mother constituted discrimination on the ground of race, contrary to the Employment Equality Act.  The Complainant referenced as precedent: DEC-E2016-105 where he submitted €15,000 was awarded for unaddressed racial harassment.

The Complainant submitted that the anonymous reports by Employee A’s colleagues created a hostile workplace and constituted harassment under the Employment Equality Act.  The Complainant referenced as precedent: ADJ-00028765 where he submitted €12,000 compensation was awarded for coordinated false complaints.

In relation to Unfair Disciplinary Process (Unfair Dismissals Act 1977) and Procedural Failures the Complainant submitted that the denial of witness statements (was a deficiency in the process.  The Complainant referenced as precedent: ADJ-00021453 where he submitted €18,000 was awarded for procedural breaches.  In relation to reliance on anonymous or unsubstantiated reports the Complainant referenced as precedent: A Care Worker v. A Nursing Home [2023] ADJ-00039821 where he submitted €20,000 was awarded for disciplinary action based on anonymous and fabricated claims.

In relation to Disproportionate Sanctions: the Complainant submitted that Ryanair issued a final warning for figurative language ("I wish she didn’t exist") despite no actual threat. The Complainant referenced as precedent: ADJ-00030217 where he submitted warnings were overturned for misinterpretation.

In relation to Breach of Contract (Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994)  and  Unauthorised Deductions (Payment of Wages Act 1991): the Complainant noted that suspension was incorrectly marked on the payroll system as “unpaid leave” , leaving him short wages.  The Complainant referenced as precedent: ADJ-00035678 where he submitted €8,000 was awarded for unlawful deductions.

In relation to alleged Career Blockage: the Complainant noted that the denial of CSS courses due to unproven allegations, violated his right to career progression.  The Complainant referenced as precedent: ADJ-00040112 where he submitted €25,000 was awarded for career stagnation.

In relation to Health and Safety Violations under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 the Complainant submitted that he had suffered Stress-Induced Illness and that medical prescriptions were linked to workplace harassment.  The Complainant referenced as precedent: ADJ-00029543 where an award was made for employer negligence.

In relation to a Discriminatory Bag Search under the Employment Equality Act 1998 and specifically targeted treatment: The Complainant submitted that only the complainant’s belongings were searched. The Complainant referenced Precedent: ADJ-00026789 where, he submitted, €10,000 was awarded for discriminatory searches.

Remedies Sought

In his submission the Complainant sought the following financial compensation:

1. €85,000 for Discrimination

2.€30,000 harassment, and victimisation

3.€25,000 for Unfair disciplinary actions

4.€20,000 for Breach of contract and lost earnings

5.€10,000 for Health and Safety violations

In addition to the above financial redress the Complainant also sought the following:

·       Expungement of Disciplinary Records

·       Removal of the final written warning and suspension.

·       Mandatory anti-discrimination training for Ryanair management.

·       Independent review of disciplinary processes.

·       Full disclosure of investigation records and witness statements.

In conclusion the Complainant submitted that Ryanair DAC breached statutory and contractual obligations, causing significant harm to the Complainant’s career, health, and dignity. The complainant submitted that he sought redress in line with WRC precedents and Irish employment law and that he proposed to present medical evidence and witness testimony at the oral hearing.

Complainant Replying Submission

The Complainant provided a replying submission to rebut the Respondent’s submissions dated 27 May 2025.

The Complainant submitted that the respondent’s submissions represented a concerted effort to obfuscate the substantive issues at the heart of this complaint, namely, pervasive discrimination, harassment, and victimisation and that the respondent had attempted to achieve this through mischaracterization of facts, denial of its procedural deficiencies, and a general disregard for the substantial body of evidence presented by the complainant.

The Complainant submitted that it would outline how the Complainant had established a robust prima facie case across all grounds alleged and further show that the respondent’s preliminary objection was a tactical manoeuvre designed to evade scrutiny and accountability for its unlawful actions.  In that regard the following is a summary of the arguments advanced:

·       Rebuttal of the Respondent’s Preliminary Objection (Abuse of Process)

The Complainant submitted that the respondent’s contention that this claim was “frivolous, vexatious, and bound to fail” was a gross misrepresentation and that it constituted an abuse of process in itself. Such a high threshold for dismissal is reserved for claims utterly devoid of merit, a characterisation starkly contrasted by the extensive documentary evidence (over 100 pages) submitted by the complainant

·       Failure to Outline Factual Matrix:

The Complainant submitted that the assertion that the complainant failed to outline a factual matrix in his complaint form is misleading. The Complainant further submitted that the WRC Complaint Form serves as an initial pleading and that the full particulars of the claim, including the detailed factual matrix, were properly elaborated within the complainant’s comprehensive submissions and supporting evidence bundle. The complainant submitted that he had meticulously detailed a sequence of events, including specific instances of harassment, discriminatory disciplinary actions, orchestrated complaints, and procedural injustices, which form the gravamen of this complaint.

·       Respondent’s Purported Ignorance of Family Status:

The Complainant submitted that the respondent’s claim to be a “stranger” to the complainant’s family status was disingenuous and demonstrably false. The genesis of the racial and subsequent discriminatory harassment lay in the racist remarks made by the respondent’s employee, (Employee A) concerning the complainant’s mother. Employee A referred to the complainant’s mother as an “illegal” immigrant in France, a fact reported by the complainant during the November 2023 investigation and subsequently ignored by the Respondent. This direct, uninvestigated racist attack on the complainant’s mother inextricably linked the discriminatory animus to his family status. Furthermore, the adverse impact on the complainant’s mental health, necessitating medical intervention, due to the sustained harassment and discrimination, engages family status protections as per established jurisprudence (Tierney v. An Post [2010] ELR 25).

·       The Disciplinary Process: A Façade for Discrimination & Victimisation

The Complainant submitted that the respondent portrayed its disciplinary actions as fair and justified. The Complainant contended that these processes were fundamentally flawed, pretextual, and constituted the very instruments of discrimination and victimisation.

·       November 2023 Incident:

The Complainant submitted that the respondent selectively narrated this incident, omitting the crucial context that it was precipitated by severe racial and sexual harassment directed at the complainant by Employee A. Employee A made racist comments about the complainant’s mother and made sexually aggressive threats, stating she would “break his finger and put it in his ass”. The complainant submitted that his reaction of “giving the finger” was a direct response to being called “creepy” and subjected to these vile provocations by Employee A on the bus after rostered duties. The Complainant submitted that the respondent’s investigation was a sham, and that it deliberately ignored the complainant’s formal report of Employee A’s racism and harassment. The Complainant further submitted that the outcome of “no further action” served to exonerate the aggressor (Employee A) and trivialise the serious complaints made by the complainant, thereby breaching its duty under Section 14A(2) of the Employment Equality Acts. This inaction emboldened further harassment.

·       June 2024 Incident:

The Complainant noted that the Respondent alleged that four colleagues reported the Complainant making “threatening comments”. The Complainant submitted that the evidence overwhelmingly indicated these reports were orchestrated by Employee A as a retaliatory measure. The Complainant noted that one reporting colleague explicitly stated in their report, “She contacted me” (referring to Employee A), confirming collusion and the reports were submitted chronologically after Employee A’s initial report. The Complainant submitted that the respondent maliciously twisted the complainant’s words and that he, suffering from severe stress due to the ongoing harassment, stated he “wish[ed] she was dead” (referring to Employee A). The Complainant outlined that he repeatedly clarified during the disciplinary process that this was figurative speech, expressing a desire for her to metaphorically not exist in his life due to the torment she caused, a coping mechanism suggested by mental health support and submitted that the respondent’s insistence on a literal interpretation of a threat to kill was a deliberate misrepresentation designed to justify an extreme sanction.

The Complainant submitted that the respondent’s claim that the complainant admitted he had a “desire to see them ‘missing’” was also a distortion. The complainant submitted that he stated in Portuguese, “tanto me faz se ela vive ou morre, para mim é indiferente,” which translates to “I don’t care if she lives or dies, it doesn’t matter to me,” and that this further clarified as wishing her away from his life, not literally missing or dead. The Complainant submitted that the sanction of a final written warning and a two-week suspension was grossly disproportionate for a verbal expression of frustration, particularly given the context of prior unaddressed harassment and the orchestrated nature of the complaints. The Complainant noted that the respondent itself considered termination, which underscored the predetermined punitive intent rather than a fair assessment. This sanction directly led to the blockage of the complainant’s career.

·       Procedural Unfairness and Victimisation: Flawed Appeal Process:

The Complainant submitted that the appeal, conducted by a regional head of in-flight, was not independent. The complainant’s explicit allegation of discrimination, made via email on 4 November 2024 was summarily dismissed as “baseless” without any investigation, further evidencing victimisation.

·       Administrative Errors & Penalization:

The Complainant noted that the respondent conceded an “administrative error” which resulted in him not being paid during his suspension.  The Complainant submitted that this was not a mere error and that the complainant’s payslip initially reflected this period as "voluntary time off", a punitive misrepresentation causing financial hardship and distress.

·       Denial of Documentation:

The Complainant submitted that throughout the disciplinary and appeal processes, the complainant was denied timely and complete access to all relevant documentation, including unredacted witness statements and new allegations introduced during meetings, thereby fundamentally undermining his right to a fair defence (specifically noting new allegations about car threats and gym incidents not in prior reports).

·       Establishing the Prima Facie Case for Discrimination, Harassment and Sexual Harassment pursuant to Section 85 A of the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015

The complainant acknowledged that it is the complainant who bears the initial burden of establishing facts from which discrimination may be inferred and submitted that he had overwhelmingly discharged this burden.

o   Discrimination on the Race Ground:

The Complainant submitted that Employee A’s racist remark about the complainant’s mother being “illegal in France” because the complainant is of Brazilian origin was evidence of discrimination on the race ground. This was reported and ignored by the respondent whereas the subsequent disproportionately harsh disciplinary treatment of the complainant (of Brazilian origin) compared to the complete inaction against Employee A (a European national) for her racist and harassing conduct was further evidence of discriminatory treatment

o   Discrimination on the Family Status Ground:

The Complainant submitted that the racist attack was directed at the complainant’s mother, directly implicating his family status and that the severe stress and anxiety caused by the workplace harassment, necessitating medical treatment interfered with his family life and well-being, engaging protections under this ground (Tierney v. An Post [2010] ELR 25).

o   Harassment (S.14A of the Employment Equality Acts):

The Complainant submitted that the initial racist and sexually aggressive comments by Employee A constituted harassment. He further submitted that the orchestrated campaign of false complaints in June 2024, designed to create a hostile and intimidating work environment was further evidence. The targeted and humiliating bag search on 10 January 2025, where the complainant alone was subjected to an invasive search, having his belongings emptied onto the floor, while other crew members were not was again presented as evidence. He contended that while this search was conducted under the pretext of a "random check" it was clearly discriminatory.

o   Victimisation(S.74(2) of the Employment Equality Acts):

The Complainant submitted that the severe disciplinary action and subsequent blocking of career progression (denial of CSS training) followed directly from the Complainant having made protected disclosures about Employee A’s harassment and subsequently defending himself against retaliatory allegations. He contended that the summary dismissal of his discrimination complaint during the appeal process was further evidence of victimisation.

In conclusion the Complainant submitted that he was treated less favourably than Employee A who faced no repercussions for her documented racist and harassing behaviour. The Complainant contended that an Irish national employee would not have faced such severe sanctions for similar verbal expressions made under duress.

Rebuttal of the Respondent’s interpretation of Law & Case Citations:

The Complainant submitted that the respondent’s reliance on legal precedent was selective and often misapplied.

In relation to the case of Melbury Developments v. Arturs Valpetters the Complainant submitted that the respondent erred in claiming that the complainant offered “mere speculation or assertions”. Instead, the Complainant submitted that he had established primary facts: (i) Employee A’s racist remark; (ii) the grossly disproportionate disciplinary sanction for a misconstrued verbalisation; (iii) the orchestrated nature of the subsequent complaints; (iv) the targeted bag search;  and (v) denial of training.  The Complainant contended that these were credible facts, not speculation and that, in such circumstances the burden shifts as per Mickey Wall v. Eurotech [2021] IECA 279.

In relation to Spyra v. Ryanair Limited the Complainant contended that the respondent’s argument that its diverse workforce negates individual discrimination was fallacious. The Complainant submitted that, as established in Mitchell v. Southern Health Board [2001] ELR 201 and Ntoko v. Citibank [2004] ELR 116, aggregate statistics cannot mask or excuse specific instances of discrimination. The treatment of the Complainant, including the unaddressed racist slur by Employee A, demanded individual scrutiny.

In relation to Rescon Limited v. Scanlan the Complainant submitted that “a clear link exists” and that the disproportionate disciplinary action followed directly from incidents involving racial slurs and was compounded by the complainant’s protected characteristic (race/nationality) and his protected acts (reporting harassment). He submitted that the differential treatment of the Complainant compared to Employee A established this link.

In relation to NTOKO v. City Bank the Complainant submitted that the respondent misconstrued this case. The complainant did report Employee A’s misconduct and submitted that the current complaint was against the respondent for its discriminatory actions, its failure to investigate the complainant’s reports, and its subsequent victimisation of the complainant.

In relation to Darguzis v. Lough Corrib Engineering Limited the Complainant submitted that the treatment meted out to the complainant was not merely “less than ideal”; it was a clear “difference in treatment” based on prohibited grounds and protected acts.

In relation to Goode Concrete v. Shaskova  the Complainant submitted that this was not a mere coincidence of nationality, that there was a clear pattern of adverse treatment linked to the complainant’s race and his attempts to address harassment and that the misinterpretation of the complainant’s language, as highlighted in Campbell Catering v. Rasaq [2004] ELR 310, may itself reflect unconscious bias.

In relation to O’Higgins v. UCD the Complainant submitted that the denial of training/promotion to the complainant was tainted by unlawful discrimination. The decision to bar him from CSS training was based on the outcome of a flawed and discriminatory disciplinary process not a fair assessment of merit. The Complainant submitted that this constituted a manifest irrationality, as per Frizelle v. New Ross Credit Union [1997] IEHC 137. 

The Complainant noted the Respondent claims that the Complainant “ultimately failed a number of these training courses” for senior cabin crew in September 2023 and that improvement was not observed before a further disciplinary issue arose. The Complainant contended that this was misleading and that the complainant’s eligibility for CSS training commenced in August 2023 (12 months post-hire). He further contended that the initial (false) allegations by Employee A surfaced in November 2023, immediately impacting his progression opportunities. He submitted that any perceived performance issues were directly attributable to the immense stress and anxiety caused by the ongoing, unaddressed harassment and the subsequent retaliatory actions, as evidenced by medical prescriptions. He further submitted that the denial of CSS course access was explicitly linked to these unproven and tainted disciplinary matters, not to genuine performance deficits unrelated to the discrimination. The complainant outlined that he had, in fact, sought clarification on his training status and was told his performance would be monitored but the subsequent disciplinary action (June 2024) was then used as the definitive barrier. He submitted that this constituted a clear blockage of career progression based on discriminatory grounds, as seen in ADJ-00040112.

The Respondent’s attack on the Complainant’s submission

The Complainant submitted that the respondent’s insinuation that the complainant’s submissions “may have been generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence” was a baseless, unprofessional, and ad hominem attack designed to distract from the merits of the case. The substance of the legal arguments and the veracity of the evidence are paramount, not the method of draughting.

The Complainant submitted the following

● That the respondent’s attempts to discredit the complainant’s cited case law by focusing on outcomes or jurisdictional bases missed the point. The cited cases were relied upon for the legal principles they established regarding employer duties and what constitutes discrimination, harassment, or unfair procedures.

● That DEC-E2016-105 established that unaddressed racial remarks (like Employee A’s comment about the complainant’s mother) constitute harassment.

● That ADJ-00028765 addressed the principle that orchestrated false accusations (as experienced by the complainant) create a hostile environment, amounting to victimisation.

● That ADJ-00021453 highlighted that denial of access to witness statements or the right to challenge evidence (the complainant was denied full access to statements from Employee A’s colleagues and details of new allegations) breached fair procedures.

● That ADJ-00030217 was relevant in terms of overturning sanctions based on misinterpretation of language (complainant’s figurative speech being treated as a literal threat.

● That ADJ-00035678 affirmed an employer liability for unlawful wage deductions during suspension (complainant’s suspension initially marked as "Voluntary time" off").

● That ADJ-00029543 established the employer negligence for ignoring stress-induced medical conditions arising from workplace harassment

● That ADJ-00026789 established the legal test for targeted searches where deviations from standard policy (the complainant singled out for invasive bag search) imply bias.

● That in the case of ADJ-00040112 the evidence directly mirrors the factual matrix of this case, where career progression was blocked via unproven allegations.

● That in relation to ADJ-00039821 the documentation provided in the instant case demonstrated collusion and procedural breaches identical to those condemned in this determination. The complainant’s medical evidence further established a causal link between protected acts (reporting discrimination) and adverse outcomes, reinforcing the applicability of both precedents.

In relation to health & safety violations the Complainant submitted that the respondent breached its duty of care under Section 8 of the Safety, Health, and Welfare at Work Act 2005 by

·       Failing to provide a safe place of work, free from harassment and discrimination.

·       Ignoring the complainant’s reports of racial and sexual harassment by Employee A.

·       Failing to take any or any adequate steps to mitigate the impact of workplace stress and harassment on the complainant’s health, despite being aware of the situation and subsequently being provided with medical evidence of stress-induced conditions requiring medication (melatonin, trazodone)

The Complainant submitted that this aligned with principles in ADJ-00029543 and Tierney v. An Post [2010] ELR 25.

In conclusion the Complainant submitted that the respondent’s submissions failed to adequately address, let alone refute, the substantial and detailed allegations of discrimination, harassment, and victimization made by the complainant. The respondent’s narrative was selective, its interpretation of events was self-serving, and its application of law was flawed.

The Complainant submitted that he had established a compelling prima facie case on all grounds, that the evidence demonstrated a consistent pattern of adverse treatment directly linked to the complainant’s race, family status, and his protected acts of reporting harassment and defending himself against retaliatory and baseless accusations. The disciplinary processes utilized by the respondent were not exercises in fairness but were instruments of this unlawful treatment.

Witness evidence at hearing – The Complainant:

Discrimination on the Ground of Race

In relation to his complaint of discrimination on the ground of race the Complainant stated that Employee A had made a racist comment about his mother, that the comment had been made that his mother was an “illegal immigrant” and he believed that this amounted to discrimination on the ground of race.  Under cross examination the Complainant confirmed that he did not raise this complaint as a grievance in the workplace but that he had raised it verbally in his response to complaints made by Employee A against him.  He confirmed that the outcome of that investigation was that there was no proof on either side.

Additionally, the Complainant stated that he was blocked from attending CSS training course and he believed this was due to his race.

Under cross examination the Complainant accepted that he had failed the course the first time and that it was company policy that an employee who had failed could not retake the course for 3 months.  He stated that when he emailed Manager 1 she advised him that he could not retake it for “at least 3 months” and that when the 3 months were over, he was continually “fobbed off”. He stated that the manager advised him to book a meeting in her diary but that when he did, she reverted to say she wasn’t in Dublin on that day and that when they eventually met in April she indicated that he would need more knowledge and experience before undertaking the course again.  He stated that in preventing him from attending the programme, he was in fact, blocked from promotion.

Under cross examination the Complainant accepted that it was necessary to achieve a score of 90% on the knowledge test and that it was also necessary to pass an assessment.

He stated that most people are let do the test after 3 months and that not having been allowed to do so was discrimination on the ground of race.

Discrimination on the Ground of Family Status

The Complainant confirmed that he had no children.  Consequently, I advisedhim that he did not therefore come within the definition of “family status” as set out in the act.

Victimisation

The Complainant stated that his concerns in this regard related to the complaints made by Employee A and thereafter by her 3 colleagues.  He stated that the 3 other colleagues were Spanish and that they twisted a phrase he had used to discuss Employee A.  He stated that he had indicated that “I don’t care about her” “I just want her away from me” but that this was a private conversation.  He stated that “in reality what I said was I don’t give a f..k about her”.  He stated that she first emailed a complaint about what he said and it was only later that the other staff submitted their complaints.  He stated that it was clear that the complaints were orchestrated.

The Complainant stated that he explained during the investigation that he had been misunderstood but that he was suspended for 2 weeks with pay, while nothing happened to the others.

The Complainant stated that while he was suspended, he was marked on the system as being on unpaid leave and so he was not paid correctly for the 2 weeks suspension.  Under cross examination he accepted that it was addressed when he brought it to attention and that he was paid the following month.

He stated he did not say he would hire a Brazilian “hit man”.

Harrassment

The Complainant stated that the incident which he considered to be harassment took place in November 2023 when the Complainant threatened him that she would “break his finger and put it in his ass”

Concluding Remarks

The Complainant stated that approximately 87% of the Respondent submission was AI generated and that he was entitled to use AI if he so chose.  In response Mr. Rowan interjected to vehemently deny having used AI, stating that he never used AI, that he prepared the submission on behalf of the Respondent and that it was checked and amended by Fieldfisher. 

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant is employed by Ryanair as Cabin Crew (position rank referred to as Customer Service Agent) since January 2023 and operates from the Respondent’s base in Dublin Airport. The Respondent noted the Complainants claims as follows:

·       Allegation that he was discriminated against by his employer by reason of his race and family status in respect of: -

o   Promotion

o   Training

·       Allegation that he was victimised

·       Allegation that he was subject to harassment

·       Allegation that he was subject to sexual harassment.

The Respondent noted that the Complainant alleged that the most recent date of discrimination was 30 July, 2024 and also noted that the “Complaint Specific Detail or Statement” provided no detail in respect of the allegations of discrimination but rather detailed the history of an engagement between the Complainant and another employee who had previously made a complaint in respect of the Complainant which was subject to a grievance procedure.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant’s submissions of 23 Aril 2025,

 post the first hearing, did not materially advance the position and that they were merely a number of allegations under various headings which failed to engage whatsoever with the principals applicable to the case the Complainant alleged he wished to make. Most notably, the Complainant provided no allegations of discrimination by reason of race or family status.

Background

By way of background to the complainant the Respondent set out the following events:

·       That the Complainant was subject to two disciplinary processes relating to incidents which occurred on or about 12 November 2023 and 30 June 2024.

·       That on or about 12 November 2023, a complaint was received from another employee (Employee A), that the Complainant

o   was displaying aggression towards fellow crew members,

o   was engaged in both physical and verbal intimidation with a female colleague and

o   that the Complainant engaged in non-consensual physical contact with members of Crew.

·       That an investigative meeting took place on or about 21 November 2023, where the Complainant denied all allegations but admitted to ‘giving the finger’ to a colleague on a bus after rostered duties.

·       That following the investigation and by reference to the Respondent’s “Rough Guide to Ryanair”, a decision was delivered by letter dated 15 December 2023 reminding the Complainant of the freedom of all employees to do their work without having to suffer harassment or sexual harassment from a colleague and that any such behaviour would not be tolerated. Having had regard to the responses provided by the Complainant during the investigative meeting, it was determined that no further action would be taken in relation to the case.

·       That a second incident arose following reports being received of an incident in the Crew Room on or about 30 June 2024. Four individual crew members alleged in their reports that they witnessed the Complainant making threatening comments towards a Dublin based colleague when talking about her in the Crew Room.

·       That as a result of the said complaints an investigative meeting was held on 16 July 2024, which the Complainant was given notice of.

·       That as a result of the investigative meeting, a disciplinary hearing took place on 6 August 2024, where the Complainant was again afforded an opportunity to respond to all allegations which had been made against him. While allegations had been made that the Complainant had threatened to kill a colleague, the Complainant advised that he had stated he “hate [them] as [they] tried to ruin [your] life and career”.[sic]

·       That in the investigative meeting of 16 July 2024, the Complainant admitted that he wished “[they] were dead” and that he had desire to see them ‘missing’.

·       That following an investigation, a determination dated 14 August 2024, issued for the disciplinary process advising that the behaviour of the Complainant which he demonstrated on 30 June, 2024, would never be tolerated and amounted to examples of gross misconduct for which the normal sanction could be up to dismissal.

·       That having considered the facts of the case, the decision-maker gave serious consideration to terminating the Complainant’s contract of employment given the seriousness of the issues, however decided to issue a final written warning. Due to the severity of the actions, it was determined that a suspension for a period of 2 weeks from 15 August 2024, was also appropriate in the circumstances. This period of suspension was with pay.

·       That the Complainant appealed the said decision with the appeal taking place on 11 September 2024.

·       That due to an administrative error during the period of suspension, the Complainant was erroneously not paid, however once this was brought to the attention of the Respondent on 26 September 2024 it was rectified in the following month’s pay.

·       That following the appeal hearing by Karen Lawless, Regional Head of In-flight, an appeal outcome was issued on 29 October 2024, which dealt with each of the five grounds of appeal put forward by the Complainant.

·       That the appeal outcome letter noted behaviours which had been exhibited by the Complainant which were not and could never be acceptable in the workplace. Having carefully considered the grounds of appeal which had been put forward and having dealt with them each individually, in addition to conducting a detailed review of the points submitted outlining the appeal and having heard the appeal, the independent decision-maker did not believe that there were sufficient grounds or new information or mitigating evidence which would overturn or impact the decision of 14 August 2024 to issue a final warning and suspend the Complainant for 2 weeks.

·       That by email dated 4 November 2024, the Complainant sought to further agitate for the matters which had been subject to a final determination in the appeal and alleged that the decision was “a total act of discrimination” against him. No basis whatsoever was provided for this allegation.

·       That by letter dated 20 November 2024, Ms. Lawless wrote to the Complainant outlining the process which had been engaged in and noted: - “The appeal process has been conducted in line with company procedures and decision was made based on the facts available in this case, as it would normally be in case of any employee submitting their appeal. Therefore, your allegation that the appeal outcome is ‘active discrimination against [you] is baseless.” [sic]

·       That the letter concluded by confirming that the appeal was the final stage under the Ryanair Disciplinary Procedure and the matter was now closed.

Preliminary objection

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant's s application should be subject to a determination on a preliminary issue, namely, that the Complainant's application is an abuse of process being frivolous, vexatious and bound to fail.

In that regard the Respondent made the following submission:

·       That the Complainant had failed to outline in his Complaint Form a factual matrix which could give rise to the allegations contained in the Complaint Form. Furthermore, the Complainant had failed to provide any updated narrative in respect of the matters alleged or Submissions as required by the WRC guidelines and as requested by the Respondent by letter dated 11 March 2025.

·       That moreover the Complainant, in his complaint raised issues to which the Respondent was a stranger, such as the Complainant’s family status.

Law Applied to the Facts of the case

The Respondent submitted that, without prejudice to the Respondent’s application for the determination of a preliminary issue to dismiss the Complainant’s claim, the Respondent relied upon the following matters in respect of the Complainant’s allegations:

·       That the Complainant alleged that he was discriminated against by reason of his race and family status.

·       That the Respondent categorically denied that the Complainant had been discriminated against by reason of his race and family status as was alleged or at all. The Respondent received complaints in respect of two separate incidents which related to the Complainant. These complaints were dealt with by the Respondent by way of a disciplinary process in accordance with its documented disciplinary procedures, a copy of which was provided to the Complainant prior to his employment commencing (which he confirmed he had read and understood) and again when the disciplinary process was initiated by the company. The disciplinary procedures are designed to protect both the employees and the employer in respect of matters which may arise during the course of an employment and set out the steps involved including investigative and disciplinary hearing stages

·       That, as was clearly set out in the determination relating to the matters which occurred in June 2024, it was open to the Respondent to dismiss the Complainant on the basis of gross misconduct, however they favoured a more lenient disciplinary sanction of a final written warning letter and suspension, notably with pay, for 2 weeks.

·       That the Complainant’s race and family status was never a factor in the disciplinary procedure or the investigations which were undertaken. As detailed above the Respondent was a stranger to the Complainant’s family status.

·       That the Respondent as an employer with over 27,000 staff working at 233 airports in 37 countries across Europe and North Africa, employs Cabin Crew from various backgrounds and from various countries. As was noted by the Labour Court in Spyra v. Ryanair Limited, the Court had regard to the composition of Ryanair’s workforce, and the outcome of an assessment exercise which showed a multi-racial workforce and supervisory structure where foreign national workers were ranked in four of the top five positions. The Court found those figures did not indicate an inherent adverse bias in the designer conduct of the exercise against non-Irish workers or a bias against non-Irish workers in the outcome of the exercise.

·       That it was of note that the first mention by the Complainant of discrimination was following an appeal outcome with which he clearly did not agree.

·       That as is outlined above, the Respondent has a staff of over 27,000 people working at 233 airports in 37 countries across Europe and North America. The majority of the 27,000 people working for the Respondent are non-Irish, in fact just 10% of their workforce are Irish with the remaining 90% representing over 100 different nationalities. The Respondent is an equal opportunities employer, is proud of its diverse workforce and of being an employer of choice for so many different nationalities.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant had failed to illustrate how he had been treated less favourably than a comparator and had not even identified an alleged comparator.

The Respondent drew attention to Section 85(a) of the Employment Equality Act which provides that the burden of proof in respect of a claim of discrimination rests on the Complainant and noted that it is necessary for the Complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts from which may be presumed there has been discrimination in relation to him. It is only if the Complainant can do so that the Respondent must prove the contrary. The Respondent submitted that the Complainant must show that a prima facie case has been established before the burden of proof can shift to the Respondent.

The Respondent noted the decision of Melbury Developments v. Arturs Valpetters where the Labour Court examined the circumstances in which the probative burden operates and stated that a Complainant “must first establish facts from which discrimination may 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 give 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….The burden of establishing the primary facts lay fairly and squarely on the Complainant and the language of this provision admits of no exception to that evidential rule.”

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant had failed to proffer anything more than speculation or assertions unsupported by evidence that discrimination had occurred as a result of his race or family status.

In addition, the Respondent opened the case of Rescon Limited v. Scanlan where it was noted that a link must be demonstrated between the ground of discrimination relied upon and the alleged treatment; mere different status and a difference in treatment is not sufficient. The Respondent submitted that while it was not accepted that the Complainant was subject to any difference in treatment than any other employee would have been where complaints such as those which had been made occurred, it was expressly submitted that the issues raised by the Complainant did not give rise to an event of discrimination.

Moreover, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant had never made an allegation of discrimination as against the Respondent or a servant or agent of the Respondent by way of grievance procedure or otherwise. The Respondent submitted that it was made clear from the determination of the Labour Court in cases including NTOKO v. City Bank [2004], employees accused of serious misconduct such as racism must be afforded fair procedures in the investigation of allegations against them. The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was seeking to raise claims of racism etc against another employee by way of WRC Complaint form and submitted that if an accused person had not been afforded fair procedures in the investigation of misconduct for which they were accused, it would not have been fair or reasonable to treat the accused less favourably by the Respondent. The employee who the Complainant appeared to have an issue with should be entitled to every opportunity to defend the Complainant’s complaints in the same way the Complainant was afforded an opportunity to defend himself against the allegations made against him. Notably, no such grievance or complaint was ever raised by the Complainant.

The Respondent noted that the Courts had refused to infer, in the absence of evidence, that a Complainant was treated badly on grounds of their nationality, as such an inference of less favourable treatment could only be drawn, whether with some evidence of a sufficient weight from which it could be concluded that persons of a different race or nationality were or would be treated more favourably or differently to the Complainant. Mere assertion of such treatment without the support of any evidence does not shift the burden of proof or provide a basis upon which discrimination could be inferred.

The Respondent submitted that while the Complainant may not be happy with the manner in which he was treated or the manner in which the Respondent conducts its disciplinary processes, this does not amount to discrimination as was noted in Darguzis v. Lough Corrib Engineering Limited , that in order for discrimination to be established by an employee, he or she must demonstrate a “difference in treatment” and not simply treatment of a manner which is less than ideal. The Respondent submitted that given the sparsity of detail “it is not known if such a submission is made and certainly not accepted that anything occurred in the disciplinary process which could amount to a criticism of the procedures. “

The Respondent noted that in Goode Concrete v. Shaskova , the Labour Court in reliance on the judgment of the High Court in Mulcahy v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Waterford Leadership Limited accepted that the mere coincidence of the Complainant’s nationality and his or her dismissal was not sufficient to shift the probative burden to the employer.

The Respondent also noted that the Complainant had selected discrimination in relation to promotion and training etc. and submitted that the test in respect of this and the importance of adhering to criteria and relevant applicable policies was emphasised by the Labour Court in O’Higgins v. UCD, which was upheld by the High Court. In its determination, the Labour Court helpfully summarised the applicable principles in cases of alleged discrimination in selection processes as follows: -

“1. It is for the Complainant to prove the primary facts upon which he relies in seeking to raise an inference of discrimination.

 2. If the Complainant is charged with that burden it remains for the Court to decide if those facts are of sufficient significance to raise the inference contended for

3. It is not necessary to establish that the conclusion of discrimination is the only, or most likely, explanation, which can be drawn from the proven facts. It is sufficient if it is within the range of presumptions that can be properly drawn from those facts.

4. In cases concerning the filling of a post, it is not the role of the Court to substitute its views on the merits of candidates for those of the designated decision-maker. It’s only role is to ensure that the selection process is not tainted by unlawful discrimination.

5. The Court will not normally look behind a decision in relation to appointments unless there is clear evidence of unfairness in the selection process of manifest irrationality in the results.

6. A lack of transparency in the selection process combined with an absence of any discernible connection between the assessment or qualification of candidates and the result of the process can give rise to the inference of discrimination.

7.Where a prima facie case of discrimination is made out and where the Respondent fails to show that the discriminatory ground was anything other than a trivial influence in the impugned decision, the complaint will be made out.

8. The Court must be alert to the possibility of unconscious or inadvertent discrimination and mere denials of a discriminatory motive, in the absence of independent corroboration, must be approached with caution.”

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant, following 10 months as an employee of the Respondent, was placed on various training courses for the purpose of being trained as a senior Cabin Crew member in or about September 2023. The Complainant ultimately failed a number of these training courses and as such, could not partake in any further training for a period of time. As was set out in a letter from the European Base Manager dated 20 July 2023, there were at that time a number of junior Customer Service Supervisor positions available in the Dublin base and the promotions were subject to overall performance in the preceding 12 months.

The Respondent further submitted that on April 4, 2024, the Complainant submitted a Zendesk query as to whether he could take the course again and was notified of the fact that his performance would be monitored and upon further improvement being shown by the Complainant and any vacancies being available, the European Base Manager would revert. Not only was improvement not observed but a further disciplinary issue arose which resulted in a final written warning and a suspension.

The Respondent submitted that once again, any allegation of discrimination, in this regard was nothing more than a baseless assertion.

Representations on the Complainant’s Submissions

The Respondent raised the following concerns in relation to the Complainant submission:

·       That it appeared that the Complainant’s submissions may have been generated with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence. This is particularly so where the case citations relied upon do not appear to give the outcome which the Complainant relied upon.

·       That the first case the Complainant relied upon is DEC-E2016-105 and he asserted that it related to racial harassment. It was a claim for discriminatory dismissal and made no reference to harassment save by reference to another authority relied upon in the decision. The Complainant asserted that €15,000 was awarded, however, the case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

·       That the second case ADJ-00028765, was a constructive dismissal case, which was again dismissed.

·       That ADJ-00021453 related to an industrial relations claim related to wages and was dismissed as the Complainant did not appear.

·       That ADJ-00039821 and ADJ-00040112 appeared to be phantom determinations.

·       That ADJ-00030217 was a claim for penalisation and did not appear to contain the word “warn” or “warning” whatsoever. Notably there was no finding of penalisation.

·       That ADJ-00035678 was once again an Industrial Relations complaint and at it’s height related to a claim that sick leave was due to issues in the Complainant’s employment. Even if it did apply the Adjudicator noted “This is a unique gesture particular to these unique set of circumstances and without precedent.”

·       That ADJ-00029543 was a case related to alleged harassment on the basis of religion. Harassment was not established and no award was made.

·       That ADJ-00026789 was a case related to a multitude of claims in a similar vein to the Complainant’s case. Despite the various limbs to the claim no breach of the Employment Equality Act was determined to have occurred and no order for redress was made. Once again there was no reference to searches whatsoever.

The Respondent noted that the Complainant had been afforded a further opportunity to support his array of unsubstantiated allegations with the benefit of directions from the Adjudication Officer of the issues which he was required to deal with. Despite this no such documentation or submission had been provided which could give rise to the relief sought. The Respondent submitted that as such it was patently clear that the Complainant’s claim was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.

The Respondent submitted that in the foregoing circumstances, the Complainant had not and could not establish facts from which discrimination may be inferred and as such the Respondent had no case to meet.

Representations on behalf of the Respondent at Hearing

Mr. Rowan raised concerns that in providing the submission requested at the first hearing the Complainant had seized the opportunity to morph his complaint into a wider series of complaints and issues.  He further raised concern that much of the submission provided appeared to be AI generated and was used by the Complainant to mislead the hearing and to create a myriad of complaints.

Mr. Rowan confirmed that as of the date of the second hearing the Respondent was still unclear as to the nationality of the Complainant and was unclear in relation to the Complainant’s family status.  He stated that the only family member referred to throughout all documentation submitted by the Complainant was his mother, and as such this did not come within the definition of family status contained in the Act. He further noted that the Complainant’s submission described him as of Brazilian origin, while his complaint form described him as Portuguese.

He stated that it appeared the Complainant was intent on creating a “trial by ambush” in failing to provide the fundamental facts necessary to respond to the complaints.

I have considered carefully all submissions verbal and written, all supporting documentation, together with representations made and evidence given by witnesses at hearing.

 Preliminary Matters

Preliminary Issue – Initial Burden of Proof Under the Employment Equality Act:

The Complainant submitted that he was discriminated against on the grounds of race and of family status and that this related to issues regarding his treatment by the Respondent in  relation to matters investigated by the Respondent in November 2023 and June 2024.  He also claimed he was victimised, harassed and sexually harassed while in the Respondent workplace.

Discrimination on the ground of Race & Family Status

It is settled law that the onus is on the Claimant to initially establish an arguable case of discrimination before the Respondent is required to disprove that discrimination has taken place.  To this end it is for the Complainant to identify and establish facts of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination to discharge the initial burden of proof under section 85 A of the Employment Equality Act. 

Section 85A of the Act deals with the Burden of Proof and states as follows:

“85A.—(1) Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to him or her, it is for the Respondent to prove the contrary..”

In evaluating the evidence before me, I must therefore consider if the Complainant has established a prima facie case pursuant to Section 85A of the Acts. 

This requires the Complainant to set out in the first instance, facts upon which he can rely in asserting that prohibited conduct has occurred in relation to him.  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 raised.

In that regard there are three specific criteria which need to be met in order to show that a prima facie case has been established, namely:

1.       Membership of a discriminatory ground (e.g. race, family status).

2.      Evidence of specific treatment by the Respondent.

3.      Evidence that the treatment received by the Complainant was less favourable than the treatment someone, not covered by the same ground(s), would have received in similar circumstances.

A prima facie case is established only when all three criteria are satisfied and only then the burden of proof shifts to the Respondent to rebut the claim of discrimination. 

The law in relation to discrimination is well established in this jurisdiction:

In Melbury Developments Limited v Arturs Valpeters IEDA09171 it was stated:

"...Complainant must first establish facts from which discrimination may 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 85 places the burden of establishing the primary facts fairly and squarely on the Complainant and the language of this provision admits of no exceptions to that evidential rule. "

In Southern Health Board v Mitchell the Labour Court considered the extent of the evidential burden which the Complainant, under the Acts, must discharge before a prima facie case can be made out.  It provided inter alia as follows:

“The first requirement is that the Complainant must establish facts from which it may be presumed that the principle of equal treatment has not been applied to them.  This indicates that a Complainant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, the primary fact from which they rely in seeking to raise a presumption of unlawful discrimination.  It is only if these primary facts are established to the satisfaction of the Court and they are regarded by the Court as being of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination that the onus shifts to the Respondent to provide that there was no infringement of the principle of equal treatment”.

Race Ground

Section 6(1) of the Act provides, inter alia, that discrimination shall be taken to occur:

“where a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated” in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2).

Section 6(2)(g) provides that: as between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds….

(h)  that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins (in this Act referred to as the “ground of race”).

It is noteworthy the Complainant did not provide a named comparator in his complaint form or in his submission of April 2025 and that it was only when he received the Respondent submission in May 2025 that he named a comparator in his replying submission.  To that end he named Employee A as the comparator.

I noted that the Complainant described himself as being Portuguese of Brazilian origin and it would appear that Employee A is Spanish.

Alleged less favourable treatment of Complainant vs Employee A

The Complainant alleged the following were the instances of less favourable treatment to which he was subjected:

·       the application of sanctions by the Respondent in relation to incidents in November 2023 and June 2024 as they were applied to him and to Employee A

·       the conduct of a bag search which he alleged was conducted in relation to him and while no other Irish workers were searched.

Having considered the extensive information provided by the parties in relation to the above matters I consider the following to be of most relevance:

·       That a complaint was lodged by Employee A with the Respondent in relation to allegations that the Complainant displayed aggression towards his fellow crew members, that he was drinking on the job that he engaged in both physical and verbal intimidation and that he engaged in non-consensual physical conduct with members of the operating crew while on a flight on 12 November 2023

·       That the respondent conducted an investigation into those complaints, providing the Complainant with details of the allegations, the opportunity to respond to same, and the right to representation

·       That the Complainant, in responding to that complaint, denied the allegations and set out his alternative view of Employee A’s behaviour

·       As part of his response the Complainant raised an issue that Employee A had said to him that she was “gonna break my finger and put it in my ass”

·       That the Respondent was unable to make specific findings in the matters as both individuals gave different accounts of events, both denied any wrongdoing on their part  and there was no independent corroboration of either account

·       That in the circumstances no disciplinary sanctions were applied and the parties were both directed towards the section in the “Rough Guide to Ryanair” relating to “Behaviour that brings the company

·       into disrepute”.

In relation to the above incident(s) , while the Complainant was of the view that he was treated differently, he presented no clear evidence of different treatment.

In relation to incidents alleged to have occurred in June 2024 I consider the following to be of most relevance:

·       That four individual crew members provided the Respondent with reports that they witnessed the Complainant making threatening comments towards a Dublin based colleague when talking about her in the Crew Room on 30 June 2024.

·       That the respondent conducted an investigation into those complaints, providing the Complainant with details of the allegations, the opportunity to respond to same, and the right to representation

·       That as a result of the investigation and findings of serious misconduct against the Complainant, he was issued with a disciplinary sanction of a final written warning and was subjected to a period of paid suspension

·       That the Complainant appealed the sanction but that his appeal was not upheld.  The appeal was based on the 5 appeal grounds set out in the Complainant’s letter of appeal.  The independent decision-maker did not believe that there were sufficient grounds or new information or mitigating evidence which would overturn or impact the decision of 14 August 2024.

Having reviewed the documentation provided by the parties and considering the submissions and evidence given at hearing I am satisfied that the Respondent conducted a fair investigation into the matters raised.  The Complainant was given the opportunity to respond to the allegations and the decision reached by the person conducting the investigation was reasonable and balanced based on the available evidence.  In reality the sanction imposed by the Respondent could be described as lenient in the circumstances.

I noted that it was only after that process had concluded that the Complainant raised allegations of discrimination in relation to the process but by that time the internal process had been exhausted, and he was advised accordingly.

I believe it to be the Complainant’s position that he, on this occasion (June 2024), was treated less favourably than Employee A was (in November 2023) and that he considers this to be the factual basis for one of his allegations of racial discrimination.  I do not accept this argument.  In June 2024 it is clear that the Complainant was found guilty of the allegations made against him and so a sanction was applied by the Respondent.  In November 2023, despite there being serious allegations made by both parties against each other, in the absence of any corroborating evidence, the Respondent was unable to make findings and so no disciplinary sanctions were applied.

The Complainant also raised the contention that his bag was searched by the Respondent and that this would not have happened to Irish cabin crew.  In this regard, the Complainant has not provided any evidence to support this assertion.  It is clear from the evidence presented by the Respondent that it had a policy in place that provided for random searches to be conducted.

Having considered the totality of the evidence in this case I find that the Complainant has not established a prima facia case of discrimination on the ground of race and so I find that this element of his complaint is not well founded.

Family Status Ground

Section 6(1) of the Act provides, inter alia, that discrimination shall be taken to occur:

“where a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated” in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2).

Section 6(2)(g) provides that: as between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds….

(c ) that one has family status and the other does not (in this act referred to as “the family status ground),….

In the instant complaint the Complainant alleged that he was discriminated against by the Respondent by reason of his family status in relation to comments made by Employee A describing his mother as an illegal immigrant.

Section 2 (1) of the act sets out that “family status” means “responsibility –

(a)    As a parent or as a person in loco parentis in relation to a person who has not attained the age of 18 years or

(b)   As a parent or the resident primary carer in relation to a person of or over that age with a disability which is of such a nature as to give rise to the need for care or support on a continuing, regular or frequent basis.”

The Complainant confirmed at hearing that he did not have any children and in those circumstances, I find that he does not have membership of the discriminatory ground of family status.  In these circumstances I find that the Complainant has not established a prima facia case of discrimination on the ground of family status and so I find that this element of his complaint is not well founded.

Victimisation

The complainant submitted that he was subjected to victimisation following him raising issues of concern about Employee A making rude and inappropriate comments to him and about his mother’s immigration status.  He alleged that he raised those comments in the investigation that took place in November 2023 and that as a consequence:

he was barred from attending training, which resulted in him not being eligible to be considered for promotion. 

·       he was subjected to “an orchestrated” set of complaints about him from 4 employees, resulting in him receiving a disciplinary sanction. 

·       the Respondent had initially failed to pay him correctly for his paid suspension period.

The only evidence put forward by the Complainant that these events were linked to him reporting Employee A was the fact that the events occurred after he reported concerns in November 2023. 

The Respondent, however, explained the training policy, and clarified that if a person failed the training test, they were not allowed to re-sit that test for a period of at least 3 months.  The Complainant accepted that this was the case at hearing.  The Respondent also clarified that, in order to re-sit the test an employee needed to demonstrate an improved knowledge base and an improved performance and outlined that before the Complainant had demonstrated same, the second serious complaint was submitted by colleagues against him.  The Respondent submitted that this was the real reason why the Complainant did not get the opportunity to re-sit the test/attend the training and could not be considered for promotion.

It is noteworthy that the Respondent conducted a full investigation into the allegations raised against the Complainant in June 2024 and made findings of serious misconduct against him.  Throughout that process the Complainant advanced the view that those complaints were “orchestrated” against him, but he put forward no real evidence to support that assertion during that internal process.  At hearing and in his submissions, the only evidence advanced by the Complainant that there was an “orchestrated” set of complaints against him was the timing of receipt of the complaints, i.e. that Employee A made her complaint first, followed by 3 other members of the team on duty on the day. To accept the position outlined by the Complainant would be to accept, with no supporting evidence, the premise that 3 other staff members were prepared to submit false complaints against him simply because they were friends of Employee A.  In my view the link connecting the complaints with his previous complaints could best be described as tenuous, and the notion that 3 employees would lie about such serious allegations to back up their friend is simply not credible.  Furthermore, it is clear from the evidence of both parties, that the Complainant confirmed making inappropriate comments about Employee A during the disciplinary process.  Those comments were understood by the Respondent to be threats against the safety of Employee A and were consistent with the complaints received from staff.  While the Complainant proposed that the Respondent understanding was based on an inaccurate translation of what he said, all 3 staff were consistent in their evidence.  In those circumstances it was reasonable for the Respondent to find, on the balance of probabilities did he did make threatening remarks about Employee A.

In relation to the shortfall in payment of the Complainant’s salary while on suspension, the Respondent had clarified that in administering the suspension on the payroll system an administrative staff member had coded it incorrectly as “unpaid leave”.  The Respondent submitted that as soon as the Complainant brought the mistake to its’ attention it remedied the situation in the next ensuing pay run.  The Complainant confirmed at hearing that this was the case.

I had, at the first hearing, clarified for the Complainant the requirement to provide clear evidence, based on facts, in order to support his claim and I advised him of the case of Melbury Developments v Arturs Valpetters where it was stated that “mere speculation or assertions, unsupported by evidence, cannot be elevated to a factual basis upon which an inference of discrimination can be drawn.”

Having considered the totality of the evidence adduced I am satisfied that the complainant was not victimised by the respondent as a reaction to having made complaints about Employee A.  Having considered the written submissions and the oral evidence of the parties to this case I find that the complainant has failed to demonstrate any link between his concerns raised in November 2023 and the later actions of the respondent in relation to him.

The lack of cogent evidence from the complainant allied to the explanations forthcoming from the respondent in relation to matters such as the training policy, the investigations conducted and the explanation for the erroneous entry onto the payroll system all lead me to a conclusion that this complaint is misconceived. In all these circumstances I find this element of the complaint to be not well founded.

Harassment & Sexual Harassment

Section 14A of the Acts provides that harassment of a worker on any of the discriminatory grounds at his workplace constitutes discrimination by the employer. Harassment is defined as any form of unwanted conduct related to any of the discriminatory grounds being conduct which has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the person. Such unwanted conduct may consist of acts, requests, spoken words, gestures or the production, display or circulation of written words, pictures or other material.

Having reviewed the documentation provided by the Complainant I consider his complaint of harassment to relate to the following:

·       What he described as “the initial racist and sexually aggressive comments” made by Employee A

·       “The orchestrated campaign of false complaints in June 2024”, which he submitted “were designed to create a hostile and intimidating work environment”

·       “The targeted and humiliating bag search which occurred in January 2025”

In addition to the above I noted that at the first hearing the Complainant was of the view that because the issues related to a female member of staff and he was a male member, this constituted sexual harassment.  Despite confirming at that hearing that he had misunderstood the meaning of sexual harassment, he persisted in the pursuit of the complaint when he provided his subsequent submissions.

In relation to the concerns raised by him in relation to comments he attributed to Employee A in November 2023, as set out above, these matters were considered by the Respondent as part of it’s investigation.  In the context of 2 very different accounts of what occurred between him and Employee A, and in the absence of any independent evidence, the Respondent was unable to make a determination on this matter.  In his submission and at hearing, the Complainant has not provided any additional information to substantiate the fact that the comments attributed to Employee A were ever said.

In relation to the allegation of an “orchestrated campaign of false allegations” against him in June 2024, it is clear from the evidence of both parties that these complaints were investigated by the Respondent and the Respondent found the Complainant guilty of serious misconduct arising from those complaints.  No additional evidence was provided by the Complainant to demonstrate that the allegations were false or contrived in any way.

In relation to the bag search that occurred in January 2025, I noted the Respondent evidence that it had a contractual clause which provided for bag searches and that it undertook such searches on a random but regular basis.  I also noted that this incident took place after the submission of his complaint in November 2024 and was therefore not comprehended by his complaint.

Having considered the totality of the evidence adduced I am satisfied that there was no evidence that the complainant was harassed or sexually harassed in the workplace.  Having considered the written submissions and the oral evidence of the parties to this case I find that the complainant has failed to provide any factual evidence to support his assertions.

The lack of cogent evidence from the complainant allied to the explanations forthcoming from the respondent in relation to the above matters all lead me to a conclusion that this complaint is misconceived. In all these circumstances I find this element of the complaint to be not well founded.

The Complainant’s Submissions

In light of the fact that the Complainant was given a degree of latitude to particularise his complaints at the first day of hearing I feel it is incumbent on me to make comment on the submissions provided by him following adjournment of that hearing.

The Complainant provided 2 submissions

(i)                  His initial submission

(ii)                His replying submission

Both submissions sought to expand the scope of the complaint originally lodged with the WRC and included claims for redress in relation to unfair disciplinary actions, breach of contract and loss of earnings, health & safety violations and breaches of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act. It seems to me that having been give a degree of latitude to present his claim under the Employment Equality Act the Complainant took the opportunity to create a myriad of additional complaints aimed at seeking to discredit the Respondent, without any real evidence to support those assertions.

For the purpose of clarity, the Complainant only lodged a case under the Employment Equlaity Act and that is the only case that is considered within this decision.

The wording of the submission would suggest that it was prepared by a representative of the Complainant but closer examination revealed that this was not the case.  In his responding submission the Complainant described as “baseless” the Respondent position that the submission “may have been generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI)”.  However, on day 2 of hearing the Complainant acknowledged that he may have used AI and became defensive about his use.

While I’m not particularly concerned about whether the Complainant used AI or not I am clear that parties making submissions to the WRC have an obligation to ensure that their submissions are relevant and accurate and do not set out to mislead either the other party or the Adjudication Officer.  These submissions were rife with citations that were not relevant, mis-quoted and in many instances, non-existent.  The Complainant wasted a considerable amount of time of the Respondent and the Adjudication Officer in seeking to establish the veracity or otherwise of legal citations.

The Complainants attempts to bring in new allegations and claims late in the day and to seek to rely on phantom citations to support his claims can only be described as egregious and an abuse of process.

I found that the Complainant has failed to establish a prima facia case of discrimination on the ground of race and on the ground of family status.  I also found that the Complainant failed to provide cogent evidence to support his claims of victimisation, harassment and sexual harassment.  In all the circumstances, I found that his complaint was not well founded, and I so decide.

Discrimination, race, family status, victimisation, harassment, sexual harassment