ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057713
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Peter McKeon | Roots Wellness |
Representatives | Self- Represented | Mr. John Keenan, JRK Business Support & Employee Advocacy Services |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00070039-001 | 18/03/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21/10/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
On 18th March 2025, the Complainant referred the present complaint to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that the Respondent discriminated against him on the grounds of religion. In particular, he submitted that the Respondent withdrew access to its services following his expression of his opinion in relation to certain religious matters. By response, while the Respondent accepted that they withdrew their services from the Complainant, they denied that this was in any way related to the expression of his religious opinion and consequently denied the allegations of discrimination raised. A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 21st October 2025. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing. Both parties issued extensive submission in advance of the hearing. The Complainant gave evidence in support of his complaints while the Respondent, a sole trader, gave evidence in defence. During the hearing, the Respondent attempted to open witness statements as part of their submission. As the authors of those statements were not present to give evidence, these fell foul of the rule against hearsay and were not considered as part of the hearing or within the decision-making process. This matter was listed alongside that bearing file reference ADJ-00057621. The complaint listed in parallel was a duplicate of the present complaint, with the relevant decision being issued under that file reference. In these circumstances, the present complaint was not pursued and is deemed to be not well-founded. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The present complaint is a duplicate of that bearing file reference ADJ-00057621 and duly deemed to be not well-founded. |
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.
I find that the Respondent did not engage in prohibited behaviour as defined by the Act. In these circumstances, I find that the complaint is not well-founded. |
Dated: 23rd April 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Key Words:
Duplicate, Parallel, Religious Discrimination |