Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Maja  Kovacevic

West Wood Club

Representatives

Peter Duff Peter Duff & Co. Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00076310-001

13/10/2025

The Complainant alleged that, on 26 June 2025, while attending the Respondent's gym, she was subjected to sexually inappropriate and degrading comments about her body by two male gym users. She further alleged that, when she challenged the comments, she was met with dismissive and intimidating behaviour and that one of the men physically obstructed her path.

The Complainant immediately reported the incident to management and subsequently made a formal written complaint. She contended that the Respondent failed to deal appropriately with her complaint, failed to adequately protect or support her, and subsequently treated her less favourably because she had raised the complaint.

The Complainant's evidence was that on the evening of 26 June 2025, between approximately 8.45 p.m. and 9.30 p.m., she attended the Respondent's Clontarf gym and entered the boxing hall intending to carry out a yoga session following a period of cardio exercise. Upon entering, she observed two men training in a boxing ring and another individual in the vicinity. She noticed signage indicating that a class may have been in progress and asked whether a class was taking place. She was informed that it was not.

The Complainant stated that as she walked towards the mat area she overheard the two men making what she described as sexually inappropriate and degrading comments about her body. She alleged that one of the men remarked that he could "train that ass" and that further comments were made which she considered humiliating and disrespectful towards her as a woman. She stated that the men laughed while making the comments.

The Complainant's evidence was that she initially attempted to ignore the remarks and proceeded towards the area where she intended to exercise. However, feeling upset and uncomfortable, she decided to challenge the behaviour. She approached the men and questioned why they believed it was acceptable to speak about a woman in that manner. She stated that she told them they should show respect towards women and indicated that she was in a committed relationship by showing a ring on her finger.

According to the Complainant, one of the men then stated that he was not interested in white women and that she was not his type. When she sought clarification regarding that remark, she alleged that the second man extended his arm to block her from moving closer to the boxing ring. She stated that she regarded this as intimidating. The Complainant further alleged that when she indicated that she intended to report the matter to management, one of the men responded dismissively by telling her to go ahead and report him.

The Complainant stated that she immediately reported the matter to staff at reception. She spoke with two female personal trainers who contacted the duty manager, Ayrton Nery. She escorted the manager to identify the individuals involved. She stated that when one of the men saw her return with the manager, he appeared to move towards her aggressively before being restrained by his companion, which caused her further alarm.

The Complainant's evidence was that she provided the manager with an account of what had occurred but was dissatisfied with the manner in which the matter was handled. She stated that the manager did not take a written statement from her and informed her that her verbal account was sufficient. She subsequently left the premises distressed and upset and sat in her car crying. After speaking with her partner, she returned to the gym to query whether the incident should be reported to An Garda Síochána and to seek further information about the Respondent's procedures.

The Complainant stated that the manager informed her that the two men had provided a different version of events and that their names had not yet been obtained. She expressed concern that they might leave the premises before being properly identified. She was advised that CCTV footage would be reviewed but would not be made available to her. Before leaving, she obtained the manager's name and the contact details of Operations Manager for the purpose of making a formal complaint.

The Complainant's evidence was that she subsequently contacted An Garda Síochána that evening and was advised to submit a formal written complaint to the Respondent and to seek legal advice. She regarded the incident as one involving sexual harassment and maintained that it profoundly affected her sense of safety within the gym environment.

The Respondent denied that they discriminated against, harassed, sexually harassed or victimised the Complainant. They stated that they took the complaint seriously from the outset and sought to conduct a full investigation into the allegations made. They asserted that, upon speaking to the individuals identified by the Complainant and the staff members present on the evening in question, a different version of events emerged from that advanced by the Complainant. The Respondent stated that, having considered the various accounts available, they were unable to reach a definitive conclusion because of what it described as a conflict of evidence.

The Respondent accepted that there were delays in the investigation process but submitted that these delays arose largely because a number of relevant staff members were on annual leave during the summer period. The Respondent further stated that some of the individuals they wished to interview were temporary or trial members and that they did not have comprehensive contact details for all of them. The Respondent asserted that, notwithstanding these difficulties, they made genuine efforts to obtain statements from all relevant witnesses and to establish the facts of the matter as quickly as possible.

The Respondent further stated that, as a consequence of issues highlighted by the Complainant, they introduced a formal Harassment Policy with effect from 1 August 2025. It was asserted that the policy was implemented across its facilities to provide a structured procedure for the reporting, investigation and management of complaints of bullying and harassment and to enhance protections for members going forward.

Preliminary Issue

Before considering the substantive matters arising in this complaint, I must first address the matter of compliance with section 21 of the Acts.

Compliance with Section 21(2) of the Acts

Section 21(2) of the Acts provides, inter alia, that before seeking redress a complainant shall notify the respondent in writing of:

(i) the nature of the allegation; and

(ii) the complainant’s intention, if not satisfied with the respondent’s response, to seek redress under the Acts.

The evidence presented was that the incident at the centre of this complaint occurred on 26 June 2025 at the Respondent's premises. The complaint concerns allegations of gender discrimination, harassment, sexual harassment and victimisation arising from events which allegedly occurred on that date. The complaint form submitted to the WRC identifies 26 June 2025 as the date of the first incident complained of.

The evidence further establishes that the Complainant served an ES.1 notification on the Respondent on or about 8 September 2025 and that the Respondent furnished an ES.2 response on 11 September 2025. The complaint was subsequently referred to the WRC on 13 October 2025.

Accordingly, there is no dispute that notification was furnished to the Respondent. The issue for determination is whether such notification was furnished within the statutory period prescribed by section 21(2) of the Acts.

The Complainant submitted that the alleged discriminatory treatment continued after 26 June 2025 through the Respondent's handling of her complaint, the investigation process, subsequent correspondence, issues relating to membership refunds and the eventual cancellation of her membership. She also relied upon the date of 11 October 2025 as the most recent act of alleged victimisation.

I have considered that submission carefully. However, I am satisfied that the substance of the complaint arises from the events of 26 June 2025. The subsequent exchanges between the parties formed part of the aftermath of the original complaint and do not constitute fresh acts of discrimination capable of extending the statutory notification period.

I therefore find that the relevant date for the purposes of section 21(2) of the Acts is 26 June 2025.

As the ES.1 notification was not served until 8 September 2025, I am satisfied that the notification was served outside the two-month period prescribed by section 21(2) of the Acts.

Compliance with Section 21(4) of the Acts

Section 21(4) provides, inter alia, that the Director General of the WRC shall not investigate a complaint unless satisfied either that the respondent has replied to the notification or that at least one month has elapsed after the notification was sent.

In the present case, the evidence establishes that the Respondent replied by way of Form ES.2 on 11 September 2025. The complaint was subsequently lodged with the WRC on 13 October 2025.

I am therefore satisfied that the requirements of section 21(4) of the Acts were complied with.

Section 21(3) of the Acts

I have also considered whether it would be appropriate to exercise the discretion contained in section 21(3)(a)(ii) of the Acts.

Section 21(3) permits an adjudication officer, in exceptional circumstances, to direct that a complaint may proceed notwithstanding non-compliance with the notification requirements.

I note that the discretion provided for under section 21(3)(a)(ii) is to be exercised only exceptionally. In Gaelscoil Thulach na nÓg v Fitzsimons-Markey (EET034), the Labour Court held that exceptional circumstances are circumstances which are unusual, special or uncommon and not those routinely encountered.

The Complainant gave evidence that she was unaware that there was a separate statutory requirement to notify the Respondent within two months. She stated that she did not know about the applicable notification timelines and that she understood, from information she had received, that she had six months within which to bring her complaint. She said that she believed she remained within time provided she lodged her complaint within that six-month period.

The Complainant also gave evidence concerning the significant distress she experienced following the events complained of. I accept that she engaged extensively with the Respondent's internal complaints process, sought advice from FLAC, contacted An Garda Síochána, attended her GP and subsequently engaged in psychotherapy. The documentation submitted confirms that she devoted considerable time and effort to pursuing the matter through a variety of channels following the incident.

I also accept the Complainant's evidence that she genuinely believed that the relevant statutory time limit was six months and that she was unaware of the requirement to notify the Respondent within two months. I further accept that she acted in good faith throughout the process.

However, ignorance of the statutory requirements or a misunderstanding as to the applicable time limits does not of itself amount to exceptional circumstances within the meaning of section 21(3) of the Acts. Likewise, engagement in an internal complaints process, the pursuit of legal advice, or the experience of distress arising from the matters complained of, while understandable, are not in themselves sufficient to displace the statutory precondition imposed by the legislation.

While I have considerable sympathy for the Complainant's position, and it was clear to me how much distress was caused to her by the events of 26 June 2025, I am not satisfied that evidence was presented of circumstances which were so unusual, special or uncommon as to justify the exercise of the exceptional discretion available under section 21(3)(a)(ii) of the Acts.

Accordingly, I decline to exercise the discretion available under section 21(3) of the Acts.

Conclusion on Preliminary Issue

Having regard to my findings in respect of sections 21(2), 21(3) and 21(4) of the Acts, I find that the Complainant failed to notify the Respondent of the complaint within the statutory period prescribed by section 21(2) of the Equal Status Acts.

I accept that the delay arose, at least in part, because the Complainant believed that the relevant statutory time limit was six months and was unaware of the separate requirement to notify the Respondent within two months. However, I am not satisfied that this amounts to exceptional circumstances for the purposes of section 21(3) of the Acts.

While I am satisfied that the Respondent replied to the notification and that section 21(4) was complied with, I am not satisfied that the requirements of section 21(2) were met, nor am I satisfied that exceptional circumstances arise such as would justify dispensing with those requirements pursuant to section 21(3).

Accordingly, I find that the statutory preconditions to the investigation of this complaint have not been satisfied and therefore find that I do not have jurisdiction to investigate it.

I find that I do not have jurisdiction to investigate the complaint for the reasons set out above.