ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057532
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Claudia Tanase | The Spice Of Life |
Representatives |
| Noleen Kavanagh and Salim Khan Co-owners |
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-00069955-001 | 12/03/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/08/2025
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.
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 in question 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.
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. 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 hearing was to be conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with 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) the hearing was to be conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing. Had evidence been given it would have been in compliance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 which came intoeffecton the 29th of July 2021, and which said legislation accommodates situations where there is the potential for a serious and direct conflict in the evidence between the parties to a complaint. In such circumstances, an oath or an affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me. It is noted that the giving of false statements or evidence is an offence. The Complaint herein was brought to the attention of the WRC on the 12th of March 2025 by way of a workplace relations complaint form.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend. I am satisfied that the Complainant was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 18th of June 2025 - and emailed to the email address provided by the Complainant on the workplace relations complaint form. The Complainant had specifically agreed to communication by electronic means when filling out her complaint form. From the complaint form provided, I have discerned that the Complainant sought to establish that she was discriminated against whilst on the Respondent retail premises. I understand that the Respondent intended defending the within complaint. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent was to be represented by the co-owners of the said retail unit. They attended the hearing ready to meet the claim being pursued by the Complainant. The Respondent rejects the complaints made and stood ready to vigorously defend the allegations. |
Findings and Conclusions:
As the Complainant did not attend, and I was therefore, not is in a position to assess the merits of her claim. |
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-00069955-001 - The complaint herein is not well founded and fails.
|
Dated: 24-09-2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|