Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Marzena  Jalowska

Sodexo Ltd

Representatives

Louis Golden BL instructed by  Dylan Green & Assoc solicitors

Katie Nugent, The HR Suite

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00065582-001

24/08/2024

The Complainant worked as a member of cleaning staff for Sodexo ltd, the Respondent. Some ambiguity surrounded her commencement date, which is recorded as 8 June 2022. The Complainant   earned €460.00 per week for a 39-hr week.

The Complainant was compelled to take sick leave in May 2024 and resigned from her position……

The Complaint form submitted placed a context and background in the case as the complainant having experienced Discrimination “due to her limited proficiency in English “. She was compelled to communicate in English and while she requested translation during meetings, “she often found herself in situations where English was spoken exclusively “.

The Complainant, Ms Jalowska was treated less favourably than a more junior colleague, Ms B, in breaks and apparel. She was overlooked for over time and denied leave.

The Complainant reported her supervisor displayed physical aggression during “a disagreement about work performance “She contended that she was placed under increased scrutiny and experienced harsh treatment causing her to “feeling powerless and vulnerable in her workplace. “

The Complainants executive summary expanded on the key facts and placed the complainant as having been subjected to “persistent discriminatory treatment by her supervisor, Ms B including:

1 language-based discrimination and harassment

2 denials of annual leave requests

3 unfair work allocation and excessive scrutiny

4 physical intimidation and aggressive behaviour

5 systematic undermining of her position

Counsel for the Complainant attributed the complainant’s leaving employment to a constructive dismissal, which arose from this discriminatory treatment. The discrimination alleged falls within the protected characteristic of nationality under Section 6(2) (h) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998.

1 Disagreement with Ms B around leave request October 2022.

2 Thereafter, excessive scrutiny and criticism of the complainant’s work

3 Ms B insisted the complainant speak English regarding work matters. English only policy enforced.

4 Physical intimidations out of sight of CC TV controlled area

5 leave request submitted on 4 January 2024 for 4 weeks July -August 2024 was refused in the face of “comparable requests from other employees being granted “.

6 Overtime and bank holiday work given to Ms C denied to the complainant.

On 27 November 2023, the Complainant lodged a formal complaint of bullying and discriminatory treatment by Ms B. This process was flawed. Findings from 16 May 2024 marked the allegations as “unfounded or inconclusive despite corroborative witness evidence “

On May 17, 2024, the complainant proceeded on medically certified sick leave to 24 June 2024. This was disturbed by the respondent. she was threatened with dismissal for being.

“Absent without notification since 27 May “

despite concurrent medical cert.

The employment became intolerable causing the complainant to resign. Efforts made to reconcile the complainant with her employment during July 2025 were unsuccessful as there was no resolution of the “underlying discrimination and hostile work environment “.

Cases relied on

Konsuela Daradics v James White and company ADJ 53723

Jade Gannon v Fides Playhouse Ltd ADJ 35897

Office Administrator v A Manufacturer ADJ 26208

Remedy sought:

Counsel for the Complainant highlighted that compensation should follow, target the duration of the discrimination and its impact the complainants   dignity and wellbeing. Section 82, Employment Equality Act, 1998, refers.

Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. Section 27

Unfair Dismissals Act 1997. section 7.

Counsel sought an order of contravention of the three named Acts plus costs.

The WRC is respectfully invited to uphold the complaint and award appropriate remedies that reflect both the individual injustice suffered and the broader importance of protecting employees from nationality-based discrimination in Irish workplaces.

In opening statement at hearing, Counsel for the Complainant outlined her persistent exposure to discriminatory treatment on grounds of race to the point which forced her resignation.

Problems emerged in the employment relationship from October 2022 onwards, where the complainant was under pressure to access leave and booked her trip. After this, the winds changed in her supervisor’s attitude towards here. she was criticised in her work out put and over scrutinised. The Complainant was directed to speak English rather than Polish in the workplace and ignored.

The Complainant made a genuine attempt to complain but this investigation process was conducted unfairly, and she had lost faith in the process and did not pursue an appeal.

The Respondent told the complainant that she was the sole employee who spoke polish.

The Complainant believed that she was singled out for noncompliance with sick leave rules and was threatened with disciplinary action. She did not submit any documentation in collaboration, and this was denied by the Respondent witness, Ms O ‘Neill.

I inquired on whether the complaint of Discrimination had been investigated.

Evidence of the Complainant by oath

The Complainant outlined that she was tasked with cleaning on a client site from June 2022. She recalled at interview that Ms B had told her that English “should not be necessary “.

Her first three months were uneventful. She was compelled to visit Poland 18-23 November 2022. she felt unsupported by her manager, Ms B, whose attitude changed towards her on return.

On 25 November 2022, she was approached regarding her standard of work.

This was escalated to a meeting in a more senior managers office with translation. The Complainant raised that she felt bullied. She recalled speaking in Polish and there were no notes or recorded outcome of that meeting. The Complainant contended she was “stalked “by her manager.

This prompted me to read out the Labour Court dicta on burden of proof in Val Peters and Melbury Developments.

I gave the parties a 10-minute break to focus on presenting the facts.

The Complainant resumed her evidence by stating that between January 2024 and May 2025, she was denied over time. She applied for annual leave and did not receive a response for 3 months and then it was a refusal. The complainant clarified this was the annual year 2024.

She was unaware of her supervisors’ views on her work, as she ahd not received direct feedback and was not in the friends group chat.

She was surrounded by colleagues who delayed in starting work through smoke breaks or coffee breaks.

The Complainant submitted she was not allowed to wear headphones.

In May 2024, the complainant discovered her work tools were locked up and inaccessible to her. She recalled contacting her supervisor, but nobody knew what was happening so she couldn’t work.

She contacted her partner who directed her to “just leave and go home “He came to the work site to meet Ms Oneill.

Eventually, the complainant submitted a complaint, and she engaged in an investigation, which she hoped would be conducted externally. She received all the reports but was unhappy with the outcome as “I wanted Ms B to be fired from work and she wasn’t “

Contact between the complainant and her manager was reduced.

The Complainant decided that this was not a good time to stay at work as she was unfairly treated. she felt her health was suffering and availed of medical certification of leave until her employer stopped paying her. She acknowledged that she returned to work for economic reasons and has tried to find more suitable work.

The complainant referred to being threatened by phone text and email during her sick leave but pointed to just one document in evidence, a letter from Ms O Neill.

The Complainant acknowledged that she was treated better on her return to work and contact with Ms B was reduced. She had experienced a blip when seeking 4 weeks leave as she received two weeks approval.

During cross examination, the complainant confirmed that she sought leave for 1st week of September 2025. Discrimination was no longer a feature as she ahd a different supervisor.

In addressing access to overtime during 2022 /2023, the complainant confirmed that she had asked Ms B who told her that “she didn’t think I wanted it “She was never asked about overtime and felt discriminated against when an unnamed person was given over time.

The complainant lost faith in the respondent after the locked equipment issue and had to take sick leave and visit her solicitor. She believed she was excessively scrutinised, unsupported and her motives misrepresented by her manager to the point where she went home to rest.

She acknowledged that she was now being asked if she could stay on rather than previously being ignored.

In clarifications, the complainant confirmed that she had not provided the respondent with a medical report of her ill health. She denied receiving an offer of training in English language proficiency.

The Complainant told the hearing that she was interviewed by Ms B and a senior manager. She was not given a probation report. Ms B was her boss June 2022-June 2025.

The locker incident occurred on May 30, 2024.

The Complainant placed the occurrence of victimisation to November 2022, when Ms B grabbed her hand.

When asked to share what outcome she sought, the complainant requested compensation for broken mental health, to cover medical expenses, emotional distress, and financial loss on sick leave.

In closing, Counsel for the complainant submitted that the pattern of negative behaviour experienced by the complainant was less favourable and attributed to her race. The investigation fell far short of expectation and fair procedures causing the complainant to lose faith in her employer.

The Respondent operates a large facilities business.

Ms Nugent who spoke as the Respondent representative has refuted all claims of discrimination on their behalf.

By way of written submission, the Respondent placed the complainant as a cleaning operative since January 2024. In complete contrast to the Complainant submission, the Respondent placed the complainant as a live employee than the product of a constructive dismissal as of 10 September 2025. The employment has not ended as the complainant returned to work on 14 July 2025 from a period of sick leave.

Preliminary Issus of Jurisdiction:

The Respondent is not on notice of any claims outside of CA-65582-001 lodged under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act 1998. The Respondent is prepared to meet this sole complaint.

The Respondent raised a number of prehearing concerns regarding the burden of proof in this case. Ms Nugent submitted that the complainant had raised a number of workplace grievances which were addressed but were not linked to her nationality or race. This does not permit the burden of proof as set down in section 85 A of the Act to move to the Respondent.

It is the Respondent case that the complainant has not established primary facts from which Discrimination can be inferred.

The Complainant has not provided a relevant comparator for the purposes of the Act. Ms C relied on by the complainant shares nationality with the complainant.

Respondent response to facts raised by the Complainant:

The Respondent has sought to justify the “requirement to communicate in English in the workplace is both reasonable and necessary, having regard to health and safety, operational effectiveness and social inclusion “

English is the designated site language and is a requirement and condition of employment. The Complainant was encouraged to improve her level of English through mediums supported by the Respondent. This was a positive supportive gesture, not meant to disadvantage the complainant.

The Respondent processed the grievance raised by the complainant in November 2023. They were aware she was dissatisfied with the outcome, but she did not avail of the appeal. Instead, she proceeded on sick leave which curtailed the disputes resolution opportunities. Occupational Health support was offered but not availed of by the complainant.

Equal Treatment

The Respondent disputed that the complainant was treated less favourably on race grounds on allocation of overtime as their records indicated that the complainant refused overtime. They made the further point that over time is discretionary but remained available to the complainant.

The Complainant benefitted from a move favourable work pattern of an earlier shift 7 m to 3 pm.

The Respondent conducted an investigation into the complainants’ complaints against her line manager, which were inconclusive. Ms B now holds an administrative role.

Ms Nugent argued that the complainant had not satisfied the test as set down by the Labour court in Mitchell v Southern Health Board 2001, ELR 201.

In reliance on Graham Anthony and co ltd v Mary Margetts EDA 038, the Respondent distinguished the facts of the instant case as the complainant is required to demonstrate more that she belongs to a particular protected category of worker under the Act.

“… The complainant must adduce other facts from which it may be inferred on the balance of probabilities that an act of discrimination occurred “.

By way of opening statement, Ms Nugent stressed that the complainant returned to work post sick leave on 14 July 2025 and has remained in post.

English is the spoken language of the company, and the complainant was encouraged to build on her English language proficiency by upskilling.

The Respondent had arranged two Occupational Health support visits with facility for translation, but the complainant did not attend.

She attended a back to work meeting, which was translated.

The Respondent understood that the complainant was dissatisfied with the outcome of her raised grievance. However, she had not lodged an appeal and proceeded on 8 weeks sick leave. She had not requested annual leave since her return.

Evidence of Gráinne O’ Neill, General Services Manager, October 1, 2023

Ms O’ Neill outlined that the Complainant was part of a cleaning team which consisted of 9 cleaners including the Supervisor. There 4 Polish and one Brazilian worker. She acknowledged that the complainant struggled the most with English language proficiency. Ms O Neill recalled that she relied on software to assist in translation.

Ms O Neill gave an account of offering the complainant assistance with her language proficiency either through duo lingo or external classes. This occurred within a performance development review and was assisted by translation. The Complainant did not come back to her on these proposals.

Ms O Neill denied that there were problems with breaks on the client site. There were two separate smoking breaks and staff had different start times.

Cleaning schedules were reviewed and changed at the behest of the client.

She told the hearing that headphones were not part of company policy.

Ms O’ Neill addressed the complainant’s application for one month’s annual leave in July 2024 when two staff had been granted leave. The Client CEO was due to visit the company; the complainant was needed on site.

Early in February 2024, the complainant requested a shift change, and she was selected for that change to a more favourable 7.30 am start.

Ms O Neill reflected on the complainants’ husbands visit to see her on November 20, 2023. He had concerns regarding the complainants’ interactions with her managers. The complainant was in attendance. While the complainant’s husband was proficient in English, Ms O Neill relied on translation in addressing the complainant. Ms O Neill advised consideration of a grievance. She did not want to inflame matters and was aware of Ms Bs familial links. She was unsure what might have caused an inaccessible equipment locker and thought it might have been a chemical incident.

Ms O Neill recalled that claims of Discrimination featured at the meeting.

Ms O Neill explained that referral to Occupational health was focussed on securing the complainants return to work. However, she did not engage.

She denied that the disciplinary procedure ahd been activated in the complainant’s case.

During cross examination, Ms O Neill understood that the topic o0f the internal investigation was directed at the complainant being instructed to “stop speaking polish “which had occurred prior to her appointment.

Ms O’Neill confirmed that English was the language of the site.

The annual leave ahd been vetoed orally prior to the written refusal.

When Ms O Neill came into post, she wanted full time administrator to roll. she had not witnessed any difficulties expressed by Ms B.

In clarifications, Ms O Neill confirmed that the complainant was offered mediation with Ms B and was informed to text her directly, which she did not do.

She was unaware of conflict with the complainant prior to her appointment and ahd not been made aware of it.

Ms Oneill confirmed that both she and the complainant had training in equality. The complainant disputed this.

Ms B was on annual leave and not available to hearing.

In closing, Ms Nugent emphasised that English was the spoken language on site and the complainants lack of proficiency in English was a contributing factor to her difficulties at work. The Company had sought to address this, but the complainant had not appealed her grievance.

The Respondent refuted all claims of Discrimination.

The Complainant is currently employed at the business.

I have been requested to reach a decision in this case CA-00065582-001 submitted to the WRC on 24 August 2024.

 The Complainant submitted that she has been Discriminated on grounds of race in respect of her conditions of employment  as provided in Section 6(2) (h) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998–2015 and contrary to s.8 of those Acts and that the respondent Harassed the complainant on grounds of  race in the course of her employment contrary to Section 14A of the Acts. The complainant is also alleging that she was subjected to Victimisation by the respondent contrary to the provisions of  Section 74(2) of the Acts.

The Respondent has come to defend the claim and has rebutted all claims made.

Preliminary Issue of Legal Parameters of the claim made.

I have set out the claim as lodged. By means of written submission, Counsel for the complainant has sought to extend the claim list to incorporate not previously listed claims under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, as amended and Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.

This would disturb the claim list beyond recognition and turn my investigation into a much broader investigation without requisite jurisdiction. I cannot permit this.

I have accepted jurisdiction in accordance with the Employment Equality Act 1998-2015. I will now proceed on that basis.

I must be crystal clear on one fact. The Complainant has not demonstrated or proved facts of her dismissal, constructive or otherwise. In fact, her own evidence reflected a live employment, albeit under a different manager. I was not provided with a note of termination in the complainant’s hand. I accept the 6 pay slips exhibited from 24 July -11 September 2025. The employment was live at day of hearing.

Consideration of the evidence

I have reflected on both party’s evidence. I have revisited the written submissions and the clarifications received on the intended scope of the grievance raised in November 2023. I had some concerns that the complainants’ specific concerns regarding Discrimination as opposed to her complaints on bullying / mobbing were addressed.

The Complainant has not provided a comparator for the purposes of Section 6(2) (h) of the Act. (on race grounds) She has mentioned Ms C, who has familial links and shares nationality with the complainant. She has also mentioned a Ms D, a supervisor and former employee at the business who acted as a witness in the internal grievance and served as a recognised translator for the complainant at work.

Discrimination for the purposes of this Act.

6.—1) For the purposes of this Act and without prejudice to its provisions relating to discrimination occurring in particular circumstances discrimination shall be taken to occur where—

(a) a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as the "discriminatory grounds") which—

(i) exists,

(ii) existed but no longer exists,

(iii) may exist in the future, or

(iv) is imputed to the person concerned,

The Complainant came to hearing with a demonstrable anger against Ms B, her former Supervisor. She openly admitted that she wanted to see her employment terminated in respect of their interactions. I can appreciate that the complainant carried a high level of being wronged and she honestly believed this.

The Respondent, in defence pointed to a number of factual errors in the complainant’s evidence and submitted that English was the official language of the business, cleaning on a client site. The Respondent contended that the complainant pushed permitted boundaries on leave application yet was supported by on site translation in addition to support in English language skills acquisition.

It was the respondent uncontested position that the complainant was permitted to converse in Polish when not specifically linked to the business objective. Headphones were banned at work. I found the complainants signature of approval on the mobile phoner policy.

For my investigation, I required precision in the facts. Time and again, I captured pockets of criticism and anger towards articulated by the complainant towards Ms B. This came to me as interpersonal conflict and a perceived unfairness at how she was treated rather than a target against her race, also shared by Ms B.

I did not have the benefit of Ms B, Ms C, or the Internal Investigator at hearing. The Complainant sole witness was the complainant herself. Likewise, Ms O Neill was the sole witness for the respondent.

It was common case that the complainant was employed as a cleaner who attracted the Contract Cleaning Agreement Employment Regulation Order (ERO). This fixes the statutory minimum rate of pay and other conditions, voluntary over time, pay slips, uniform procedures, optional sick pay, and death in service benefit.

I heard the complainant when she argued that she was over managed and over scrutinised in her work. She augmented this by contesting that she was required to speak English at work when the company demanded it. Her complaint was not that she was denied her rights but that the company delayed in responding to her causing her to feel an outsider. I found some overlap in the Darguisz v Lough Corrib Engineering ltd DEC E 2009 -038, which identified that there a drawn distinction between unfair treatment and discrimination. This is an objective test.

I considered the 2014 case report of Mirela Mentel and Top Heights ltd [2014] 25 ELR 219 at the former Equality Tribunal. This case involved a Polish worker in hospitality who complained in not receiving a contract, rest breaks, and annual leave. Overtime was unpaid and the general work environment “unsafe and unhealthy “. The Complainant was not proficient in English and was vulnerable to exploitation. The facts of the case are distinguished from the instant case on the depth of mistreatment which the Tribunal recognised as Harassment.

In the instant case, the complainant focussed on her interaction with Ms B, her former supervisor. She had some unease in operational matters like leave at short notice.

The Complainant has submitted very few precise details of the occurrence of discrimination linked to her race. To succeed in her claim for direct discrimination, she must demonstrate a nexus between what occurred and her race.

She has not done this to my satisfaction in the absence of an acceptable comparator of a different race.

However, I have looked further at the complainant’s insistence that her being compelled to speak English in the workplace when her English proficiency was low amounted to Discrimination on race grounds.

The Respondent submitted that they recognised that the complainant had low proficiency English and offered translation at the business as well as support on English language skill acquisition at the business and at training college. Ms Oneill told me that the complainant did not engage on that proposal.

I am satisfied that the complainant cannot reach the prima facie stage for my being able to infer direct discrimination on this point, but I wondered if this was indirect discrimination?

The Complainant contended that she was singled out and humiliated on this point.

I have considered the facts of a 2017 case at the Labour Court on Polish complainants who worked as part of a 228 staff across 14 nationalities in the catering Dept. There was a stated policy that English was the language of the business with a fall back to vernacular when business objectives not centre stage e.g. breaks.

I would like the Parties to reflect on this Decision which held that a requirement to speak English was indirectly discriminatory on race but objectively justified through the stated business requirements.

It is not lost on me that the Respondent did not have a mirror policy to Aer Lingus. However, in Ms report of May 2024, she made a Recommendation that the company inform staff by notice that English is the official business language.

The Respondent stated that this was universally understood from the complainant’s arrival at the business.

The complainant did not engage with these recommendations and did not appeal. Instead, she followed them with an 8-week absent through sick leave.

Lukasz Kacmarek, Marcin Turczyk and Rafal Wilczkiew (complainants/appellants) v Aer Lingus (respondent)

EDA1712

• While the requirement to speak English was indirectly discriminatory on the race ground, it was objectively justified.
• (2) The respondent's purported justification on the basis that the policy was necessary to ensure food preparation instructions were understood was not the minimum restriction necessary to ensure that objective. This objective could have been met by requiring staff engage English with their supervisors on such matters.
• (3) The requirement that staff speak in a common language while at work is a reasonable requirement in the circumstances in which there are such a large number of nationalities employed in a common area of work.
• (4) The respondent has adopted the minimum unfavourable treatment necessary to achieve its objective by not requiring that English be spoken on official work breaks. A Post v Monaghan [2013] IEHC 404 applied.

I have found that the insistence on English as the official business language on the client site was indirectly discriminatory on race grounds. However, the Respondent has objectively justified this practice, and I am satisfied that the complainant was offered supports and translation on request.

Section 14 (7) (a) —Harassment

(i) references to harassment are to any form of unwanted conduct related to any of the discriminatory grounds, and

(ii) references to sexual harassment are to any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature,

being conduct which in either case has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for the person.

(b) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a), such unwanted conduct may consist of acts, requests, spoken words, gestures or the production, display or circulation of written words, pictures, or other material.

I have found that the Complainant has not discharged the evidential burden required to prove facts from which I can infer that harassment on grounds of race occurred.

I have found that the complainant and her supervisor experienced a clear discord from October 2022 onwards. This was not aided by the complainants’ partners arrival to the workplace in November 2023, while strictly not within the cognisable period for this claim 25 February 2024 to 24 August 2024 clearly, however well-intentioned added another obstacle to the affected parties working on their relationship as Supervisor and worker.

The Labour Court considered a very troubled workplace in

Oasis Global management company (ireland) limited and Muhammednurulain Boda EDA 2561

The Complainant told the Court that he had been “harassed and abused” very badly by his superiors during his employment and particularly during the period leading up to, and following, the transfer of the Irish Funds to the UK i.e. between late 2019 and his resignation on 14 January 2022. He named one director, in particular, Mr Nazeem Ebrahim who, he said had been very rude to him and had a “harassing nature.” According to the Complainant, although he had been working extremely long hours on a daily basis and often over weekends, he continued throughout the aforementioned period to be harassed and abused by Mr Nazeem Ebrahim. The Complainant cited a specific example of the type of behaviour which Mr Ebrahim allegedly exhibited towards him. It was in the form of a screenshot from a WhatsApp exchange that took place, in either September or October 2021, in the Complainant’s recollection. In that exchange Mr Ebrahim wrote: “Nurailain [sic] is a lazy bastard!!! Press him Every day Every day Send him an email cc CEO and COO Make this your project to f**k him up He is not going to join us, so he and [S] are not doing it!!!!”

The Labour Court emphasised cautioned against a void in evidence through assertions.

In Melbury Developments Ltd v Val Peters [2010] ELR 64, The Labour Court stated that “mere speculation or assertions, unsupported by evidence, cannot be elevated to a factual basis upon which an inference of discrimination can be drawn”.

The Court analysed the evidence as:

The WhatsApp exchange that was exhibited by the Complainant paints Mr Nazeem Ebrahim in a very poor light. The Complainant’s evidence about the extremely long hours he was required to work for no additional remuneration was not rebutted. The Complainant’s evidence taken as a whole suggests that while working for the Respondent he was not treated with the respect and dignity that every employee has a right to. That is inexcusable. However, the evidence does not meet the threshold required to establish a prima facie case under the Act such as is required to shift the evidential burden to the Respondent.

In the instant case, I found that the complainant gave as good as she got on the what’s app exchanges, particularly in relation to sick leave documentation. I found no concrete evidence that the complainant was facing disciplinary action for sick leave but rather the respondent was chasing a sick note. It has been a common denominator in this case that documentary detail of annual leave and sick leave was not executed in accordance with company policy.

I have not established that the complainant was denied over time, which was voluntary. I accept the Respondent submission that the complainant placed her medical condition as a reason for her nonparticipation.

I found that the Respondent can rely on the defence in section 14(A) 2 of the Act by provision of their policy, offer of Mediation and prompt investigation. It is regrettable the recommendations went untested.

2) If harassment or sexual harassment of the victim by a person other than his or her employer would, but for this subsection, be regarded as discrimination by the employer under subsection (1), it is a defence for the employer to prove that the employer took such steps as are reasonably practicable—

(a) in a case where subsection (1)(a) applies (whether or not subsection (1)(b) also applies), to prevent the person from harassing or sexually harassing the victim or any class of persons which includes the victim, and

(b) in a case where subsection (1)(b) applies, to prevent the victim from being treated differently in the workplace or otherwise in the course of the victim’s employment and, if and so far as any such treatment has occurred, to reverse its effects.

I find the claim for Harassment to be unfounded on race grounds and view what occurred as a supervisor /employer staff relations dispute.

Victimisation Section 74(2) of the Act

(2) For the purposes of this Part victimisation occurs where dismissal or other adverse treatment of an employee by his or her employer occurs as a reaction to—

(a) a complaint of discrimination made by the employee to the employer,

(b) any proceedings by a complainant,

(c) an employee having represented or otherwise supported a complainant,

(d) the work of an employee having been compared with that of another employee for any of the purposes of this Act or any enactment repealed by this Act,

(e) an employee having been a witness in any proceedings under this Act or the Equal Status Act 2000 or any such repealed enactment,

(f) an employee having opposed by lawful means an act which is unlawful under this Act or the said Act of 2000, or which was unlawful under any such repealed enactment, or

(g) an employee having given notice of an intention to take any of the actions mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.

 Victimisation provided for in s.74(2) of the Employment Equality Acts therefore are as follows:

The employee had taken action of a type referred to at s.74(2) of the Acts (a protected act),

The employee was subjected to adverse treatment by the respondent, and,

The adverse treatment was in reaction to the protected action having been taken by the employee.

Dept of Defence v Barrett EDA1019

I found that the Complainant made a bona fide complaint of Discrimination on race grounds in November 2023. I find that she participated in an investigation into complaint, where she made two presentations. I found that the Investigation found in the complainants favour on a number of her allegations and framed recommendations as a suggested way forward.

The Complainant did not engage with the outcome of this investigation and did not appeal the finding. I cannot establish that she was victimised for having made a complaint of Discrimination on race grounds. She was provided with a change of shift to more favourable start. She was offered a training pathway for improved language proficiency. She was provided with positive Recommendations at the conclusion of the internal report. Barrett applied.

I have been requested to decide whether a continuum of discrimination occurred in this case.?

CA-00065582.

Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.

I have found that the Complainant has not discharged the evidential burden required to prove facts from which I can infer that direct discrimination on grounds of race occurred. However, I have found that the compulsion for the complainant to speak English as the business language was indirectly discriminatory. I found that the Respondent objectively justified this practice.

The claim for discrimination on race grounds has not succeeded.

I have found that the Complainant has not discharged the evidential burden required to prove facts from which I can infer that Harassment on grounds of race occurred.

I have found that the Complainant has not discharged the evidential burden required to prove facts from which I can infer that Victimisation on grounds of race occurred.

English Language proficiency / Discrimination/ Harassment and Victimisation on grounds of race.