Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ciara  Dignam

Westwood Club Clontarf trading as Gym Lesiure Childcare

Representatives

Peter Duff of 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-00076694-001

22/10/2025

The Complainant was previously an employee of the Respondent gym’s childcare service. In June 2025 she left their employment. In October 2025 she sought to join the gym, in part because she was experiencing back issues.

The Respondent refused her membership at that time due to their policy requiring former employees to not be a member for at least 6 months after which they can only join on the basis of managerial approval.

The Complainant attended the hearing and made oral and written submissions. She worked hard for the Respondent over a number of years and left in a professional and respectful manner.

Due a back issue she was advised to join a gym. She sought to join Westwood but was prevented based on an undocumented rule she was unaware of. After she disclosed her medical condition there was no consideration of it as a reason to set aside the 6-month requirement. They failed to provide reasonable accommodation to her.

The Complainant clarified that she does not allege that the disability was the reason they wouldn’t let her be a member. Her back issues constitute a disability as defined by the Equal Status Acts and as such the Respondent should have facilitated her in joining after they became aware that the need for her to join a gym was related to those back issues.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant’s case is misconceived. The decision to not permit her to join was entirely down to the policy regarding former employees. The Complainant does not dispute this and does not allege that it arose from her disability.

For the avoidance of doubt the Complainant is now eligible to join the gym as it more than 6 months since she was an employee.

Section 4 of the Equal Status Acts prohibits discrimination on ground of disability.

4.—(1) For the purposes of this Act discrimination includes a refusal or failure by the provider of a service to do all that is reasonable to accommodate the needs of a person with a disability by providing special treatment or facilities, if without such special treatment or facilities it would be impossible or unduly difficult for the person to avail himself or herself of the service.

(2) A refusal or failure to provide the special treatment or facilities to which subsection (1) refers shall not be deemed reasonable unless such provision would give rise to a cost, other than a nominal cost, to the provider of the service in question.

The Complainant’s case is not that she was prohibited from joining the Respondent gym because of her disability nor that she couldn’t use the gym because the Respondent would not make a reasonable accommodation to allow her to access the gym.  Her position is that after they discovered that she had a medical reason for joining, they should have reversed their decision to not allow her to join because she was a former employee.

The Respondent’s solicitor, Mr Duff, is correct in his submissions, that this complaint is misconceived and is not within the scope of the act.

I find that the complaint is not well founded.