Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Grace  MacLean

Paul Tynan

Representatives

Jason Murray BL instructed by Leah Moriarty RDJ LLP

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000

CA-00070727-001

10/04/2025

The Complainant stated that she was discriminated against on the ground of disability from 13 January 2025 and was denied reasonable accommodation in accessing gym services.

The Complainant stated that she has a sensory modulation disorder, including Irlen Syndrome, which causes significant sensitivity to light and noise. She stated that exposure to background music can result in severe physical symptoms, including migraine, fatigue and disorientation.

When joining the gym in September 2024, the Complainant clearly informed the manager of her condition and emphasised that she could only use the facilities if the music volume was reduced during her attendance. The manager agreed to this arrangement, and it was implemented in practice for approximately three months. During this period, staff lowered the music whenever she attended, enabling her to use the gym in the same way as other members. 

The Complainant stated that this arrangement constituted reasonable accommodation, was effective, and imposed no burden on other members, as no complaints were made about reduced music levels.

However, on 13 January 2025, the Complainant stated that this arrangement was effectively withdrawn. During a conversation with the manager, she was told that music could not be reduced during classes or peak times and that she would need to use noise-cancelling equipment if she wished to continue attending. She stated that the manner of the interaction was abrupt and dismissive, and said she felt that the manager questioned the legitimacy of her condition and imposed new conditions on her attendance without prior discussion.

The Complainant asserted that these changes amounted to a unilateral alteration of the terms on which she had joined the gym. She stated that, as a result, she was effectively restricted in her access to the facilities, including being unable to attend classes or use the gym freely at all times, unlike other members.

She further stated that the withdrawal of the agreed accommodation placed her at a significant disadvantage and resulted in her being treated less favourably than other users of the service. She emphasised that the initial arrangement had operated successfully, demonstrating that the accommodation was both reasonable and practicable.

Following this interaction and the distress caused, the Complainant cancelled her membership at the end of January 2025. She stated that she no longer felt comfortable returning to the gym due to the manner in which the situation had been handled and her loss of trust in management.

The Complainant was a member of the gym from September 2024 until January 2025. It was accepted that she informed staff, including Mr Tynan, that she had a condition which made her sensitive to light and noise. The Respondent stated that arrangements were made, where possible, to reduce the volume of music in the gym during her attendance. The Respondent stated that this adjustment was provided on an ongoing basis throughout her membership and that she was never refused access to the gym facilities.

The Respondent disputed the Complainant’s version of the interaction of 13 January 2025, stating that the discussion was aimed at identifying further ways to assist the Complainant, including the use of ear protection, and that any measures had to be reasonable having regard to other users and the operation of the gym.

Preliminary Point:

The complaint has been brought against Mr Paul Tynan in his personal capacity. The Respondent stated that the relevant service provider is not Mr Tynan, but Holohan Fitness Unlimited Company, which operates the gym in question. The Respondent asserted that this is not a simple clerical mistake but a fundamental error going to the identity of the correct legal party.

In this regard, I note that the Labour Court in Briona Brogan v Andrew Currie (DWT2659) addressed a similar situation where a complainant initiated proceedings against an individual rather than the correct legal entity. The Labour Court held that, notwithstanding arguments regarding variations in naming, the complaint had been brought against the wrong respondent and, critically, that:

“the time limit for making a case against the correct Respondent has passed… Mr Currie was not the employer… the Court… has no option but to find that the complaint was taken against the wrong Respondent and that it is not in a position to substitute an alternative Respondent.”

This authority makes clear that an error as to the identity of the respondent is not one that can be remedied where the statutory time limit has expired.

Furthermore, I am satisfied on the evidence that the Complainant was placed on clear notice of the identity of the correct legal entity by correspondence dated 13 March 2025, wherein solicitors for Holohan Fitness Unlimited Company furnished the relevant details, including the E.S.2 Form. Notwithstanding this, the complaint proceeded against Mr Tynan in his personal capacity.

Having considered the submissions and documentation, I am satisfied that the service complained of was provided by a corporate entity, namely Holohan Fitness Unlimited Company, who the Complainant paid her membership fee to, and not by Mr Tynan in a personal capacity. The naming of an individual employee or manager, rather than the legal entity providing the service, constitutes a misidentification of the Respondent rather than a minor technical or clerical error. In circumstances where the time limit for bringing a complaint under the Acts has expired, I cannot substitute a different respondent in place of the named individual.

Accordingly, I find that the complaint is fundamentally defective and that I have no jurisdiction to hear it.

I have no jurisdiction to hear the complaint for the reasons set out above.