Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Rahul  Gupta

Cronnkeen Ltd.

Representatives

In person

Internal Representation

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00071506-001

12/05/2025

The complaint was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 12th May 2025. While the complaint was submitted in accordance with the provisions of the Equal Status Act, 2000, the issue raised related to the complainant’s employment with the respondent. It was agreed by both parties at the commencement of the adjudication hearing that it was appropriate to hear the matter under the Employment Equality Act, 1998. This change is reflected within the text of this adjudication decision.

The complainant represented himself at the adjudication hearing. The hearing was held remotely using the Webex platform and the complainant did not switch on his camera and attended with audio only.

The basis of the complaint is that the complainant was discriminated against on the grounds of gender, race and “other.” The complainant also alleges to have been harassed by the respondent.

The complainant, in his oral submission, outlined that two complaints had been made against him by his colleagues on 7th May 2025. The complainant submitted his resignation to the respondent on 9th May 2025 but subsequently changed his mind and withdrew his resignation. The withdrawal of his resignation was accepted by the respondent. The complainant stated that a further two complaints were made against him on the 9th May 2025 and 11th May 2025 and that he was invited to an investigation meeting on his return to work on 12th May 2025. The complainant stated that he was not provided with any details of the complaints and chose to resign from his employment on 12th May 2025. The complainant is seeking compensation in relation to his complaint.

The respondent confirmed that the complainant was employed since 26th June 2023 and at the time of the incidents was employed as a retail assistant. The respondent outlined in its submission that there were four complaints made against the complainant between 4th May 2025 and 11th May 2025. The respondent confirmed that the complainant had resigned on 8th May 2025 but had reconsidered his resignation and the respondent accepted his return to its employment.

In respect of the complaints, the respondent confirmed to the complainant that an investigation meeting would be arranged for the 12th May 2025 and the complainant would be given a copy of all complaints at that time. The respondent stated that the complaint was assured that he would be given the right to reply at the investigation meeting but instead chose to resign for the second time on 12th May 2025.

In respect of the complaints of discrimination and harassment, the respondent stated that most employees are foreign nationals and that the business would not have survived for 35 years if it had not been for the commitment of the staff. The respondent objected in the strongest possible terms to the accusations that any staff member would be discriminated against or harassed as claimed. The respondent concluded its submissions by stating that the complainant had not satisfied the burden of proof in relation to his complaints and that the complaints should fail.

The Applicable Law

Discrimination

Sections 6(1) and 6(2) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015 state as follows:

6(1) For the purposes of this Act and without prejudice to its provisions relating to discrimination occurring in particular circumstances discrimination shall be taken to occur where—

(a) 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) (in this Act referred to as the "discriminatory grounds") which—

(i) exists,

(ii) existed but no longer exists,

(iii) may exist in the future, or

(iv) is imputed to the person concerned,

(b) a person who is associated with another person—

(i) is treated, by virtue of that association, less favourably than a person who is not so associated is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, and

(ii) similar treatment of that other person on any of the discriminatory grounds would, by virtue of paragraph (a), constitute discrimination.

6(2) As between any 2 persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are—

(a) that one is a woman and the other is a man (in this Act referred to as “the gender ground”),

(b)-(g) not relevant

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

Burden of Proof

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.

(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 a complainant.

(3) Where, in any proceedings arising from a reference of a matter by the Authority to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission under section 85(1), facts are established by or on behalf of the Authority from which it may be presumed that an action or a failure mentioned in a paragraph of that provision has occurred, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.

(4) In this section "discrimination" includes—

(a) indirect discrimination,

(b) victimisation,

(c) harassment or sexual harassment,

(d) the inclusion in a collective agreement to which section 9 applies of a provision which, by virtue of that section, is null and void.

(5) The European Communities (Burden of Proof in Gender Discrimination Cases) Regulations 2001 (S.I. No. 337 of 2001), in so far as they relate to proceedings under this Act, are revoked.

Conclusions

I have considered the submissions of the parties to this complaint. The complainant must establish facts from which it can be inferred that he was discriminated against and harassed based on his race and gender. The complainant has highlighted four complaints that were made against him by his colleagues and his intention to defend himself at an investigation meeting into same. The investigation meeting was arranged for 12th May 2025; however, the complainant resigned for the second time on the date of the investigation meeting and submitted his complaint to the WRC that same day. In respect of the burden of proof, I find that the complainant has not established any facts whatsoever that his race and gender were a factor in the alleged treatment that he has complained of nor has he established that he was discriminated against or harassed in circumstances where he resigned from his employment before an investigation could be carried out into complaints made against him. In all the circumstances of the complaint, I find that the complainant has not made out a prima facie case of discrimination/harassment. Accordingly, the complaint fails.

For the reasons stated above, I find that the complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination. Accordingly, I find that the complaint is not well founded.

Discrimination, harassment, prima facie case