Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Amy  Finn

Safe Ireland

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00074021-001

02/08/2025

The Complainant was successful in obtaining a role with the Respondent subject to two references.

The Complainant was offered a role as part-time Domestic Violence Support Worker. The Complainant provided contact details for three referees (two managers and one HR from her last three roles. Safe Ireland contacted the Complainant to say they have not received a response from two of the references. The Complainant responded to offer contact details for the HR department for each employer, she also offered details for a third reference. Safe Ireland asked her to chase the references and she emailed the HR departments from the three organisations.

On the 22.7.25 Safe Ireland contacted her 'Regarding the references you supplied we have only received statements of employment. It is safe Ireland policy to have references on file for all our employees.' She was asked to provide two written references from employers by 25.7.25. She responded the same day to say that she is aware many organisations (particularly in the UK) now have polices limiting the detail they can provide in references due to legal and GDPR reasons. She tries to obtain two other references from employers, one is only able to provide employment verification due to their GDPR policy and the other is able to add a brief line to attest to her professionalism.

She reached out on a few occasions to safe Ireland to update them re actions she has taken. She raises concern this is indirect discrimination as employment verifications are the standard form of UK reference within social care. on 31.7.25 she received an email from Safe Ireland saying that they 'have a policy in place that outlines the 3 need to have two references in place for all employees' They received 4 employment verification references, a supervisor’s report and an academic reference. She does not want this to happen to future applicants to safe Ireland where references cannot be given in Safe Irelands specific format. She feels disappointed that a charity that prides themselves on intersectional and inclusive practice treated her dismissively and curtly.

The Respondent is Safe Ireland National Social Change Agency works to eradicate Domestic, Sex, Gender and Sexuality-Based Violence and works with 37 independent domestic violence organisations including refuges, advocacy, crisis helplines, and therapeutic organisations. The safety of the women and children that use their services is at the heart of everything they do.

Staff that are employed are placed in positions of significant trust, often working directly and unsupervised with very vulnerable adults and children. The position of Domestic Violence Support Worker involves direct contact with women and children, crisis/ emergency support, risk assessment and safety planning, access to confidential personal information, presence within secure refuge premises. All roles within Safe Ireland require enhanced vetting and verification beyond minimum statutory requirements and Garda vetting due to the nature of the work and in line with safeguarding obligations.

The Statements of Employment and emails provided did not meet the Respondents Recruitment & Selection policy requirements of vetting and verification. There were difficulties obtaining these as most of the Complainant’s references were in universities which were on summer break. The Respondent sought written references in line with their policy, not statements of employment. The Respondent defines “satisfactory references” as references that provide sufficient information to enable the Respondent to assess an applicant’s conduct, reliability, and suitability for a role involving direct contact with vulnerable women and children.

On that basis, they were unable to offer the role to the Complainant.

The Respondent respectfully submits that no prima facie case of discrimination on the race ground has been established. The Complainant has engaged in speculations and assertions unsupported by evidence and has not identified a comparator group placed at a particular disadvantage, any statistical, factual or evidential basis demonstrating disadvantage; any evidence that the Respondent’s policy disproportionately affects persons of any protected ground. The mere fact that former UK employers provided statements of employment rather than narrative references does not establish group disadvantage under the Acts.

The Respondent says their requirement for validated employment references is appropriate because it enables assessment of professional conduct; it identifies safeguarding or boundary concerns not captured by criminal record checks; and it allows evaluation of suitability for high-trust roles. Garda verification is not sufficient in this respect. The requirement pursues legitimate objectives, and is appropriate, necessary and proportionate. The decision not to appoint the Complainant was based solely on safeguarding verification and not on any protected characteristic.

I have considered the submissions of the parties.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant at the hearing. I am satisfied that the Complainant was notified of the arrangements for the hearing.  I find the Complainant’s failure to attend such a hearing was unreasonable in the circumstances and that any obligation under Section 79 has ceased.  As no evidence was given at the hearing in support of the allegations of discrimination, I conclude the investigation and find against the Complainant.

I conclude the investigation and find against the Complainant.