ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00059539
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Complainant | A Respondent |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00072456-001 | 13/03/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00072456-002 | 30/05/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/03/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
As this matter is linked to an allegation of discrimination against a child I have determined that I should anonymise the decision.
Background:
The Complainant is the father of a child who attends a school in Ireland. That school is linked to a foreign country. The Complainant and his wife have submitted complaints that the school has discriminated against them and their child. They have also submitted complaints against a regulatory agency based in a foreign jurisdiction on the basis that it has some role in overseeing the school. That agency is the Respondent in this matter. The Complainant’s family’s cases against both this Respondent and the school were given the same hearing date. The school attended and that case and that case was subject to case management. The Respondent did not, however they had made written submissions outlining that they are not an appropriate Respondent for the purposes of the act. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent discriminated against him and his family. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent is a regulator based in a foreign jurisdiction. It does not provide educational services in Ireland but rather certifies whether certain institutions comply with its standards and methods. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Equal Status Acts govern the provision of goods and services to the public or a section of the public, in this jurisdiction. On review of the Respondent and their role I am satisfied that they do not come within the scope of this act. In the hearing I gave the Complainant an opportunity to comment on the Respondent’s submission and informed him that I am considering dismissing this complaint. The Complainant confirmed that the school is the focus of his complaints and he understands if the Respondent does not come within the scope of the act. For completeness I note that the Complainant has submitted copious submissions in the style and volume which would suggest they were AI generated. In such circumstances I am unsure as to what elements of the submissions are his own arguments which he himself actually stands over and what was generated solely by AI. As such I relied primarily on his response in the hearing rather than his written submissions. |
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 complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 07-07-2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|