Anonymised Parties

  A Parent

 A Secondary School

Representatives

  In person

 O'Flynn Exhams Solicitors LLP

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00067193-001

06/11/2024

The complaint which was submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission on 6th November 2024 alleges ongoing direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation on the grounds of gender, race, age and civil status. The complainant also alleges to have been discriminated against in respect of education and “other”.

Naming of the parties.

As the specifics of the within complaint relate to a child at school, and to prevent the identification of the child, I have decided to use my discretion and anonymise the parties to this complaint.

The complainant addressed his complaints at the adjudication hearing by way of oral submissions and submitted written documentation in advance regarding his contention that the school principal is colluding with his ex-wife to discriminate against him. The complainant outlined that he is a “single dad” and is being prevented from carrying out his duties as a father. He outlined that his ex-wife is not willing to co-operate with him, and he feels that he is being treated in the same un-cooperative way by the school principal. The complaint stated that he was prevented from accessing his children, whereas other fathers were permitted to collect their children. The complainant stated that he was repeatedly denied access to the school by the school principal and was treated very badly by her as the only African present on the occasion complained of. The complainant contends that he was not consulted in respect of the child’s detention following an alleged incident of vaping. The complainant stated that despite the ill treatment he was subjected to and the school principal calling the guards, all charges against him were dropped. The complainant contends that his complaints against the respondent are well founded and should succeed.

Preliminary Point

The respondent stated that the complainant has incorrectly named the school in question as the respondent.  This has been amended.

Substantive Issue

The respondent outlined that the complainant submitted his ES1 form to the school principal on 23rd September 2024 in respect of incidents alleged to have taken place between 2nd September 2024 and up to the date of the ES1 form. The respondent issues an ES2 form to the complainant on 22nd October 2024 outlining its position in relation to the complaint.

In respect of the incidents complained of, the complainant was informed that his son had been vaping in the bathroom and would be subject to detention as a result. This was notified to the child’s parents in the normal way and for a suitable date and time for the detention to be agreed with the child’s mother as the first parent. The respondent stated that there were no other interactions with the complainant in the timeframe alleged except standard text messages regarding the election of parents to the board of management and the notification of an early school closure.

Burden of Proof

The respondent contends that the complainant has not established facts from which an inference of discrimination can be drawn and therefore, has not discharged the burden of proof in line with Section 38A (1) of the Equal Status Act, 2000. The respondent cited the Labour Court Determination in Mitchell v Southern Health Board [2001] ELR 201 in support of its position in that regard.

Evidence

The school principal gave evidence by affirmation at the adjudication hearing. The witness stated that she had been principal for eight years and had known the complainant’s son for a long time and had taught him science. In respect of the complainant, the witness stated that he had access to the school to collect his children on Fridays at 3pm in line with the Court Order relating to his access to the children as their guardian as opposed to being noted as the “first parent”. As the issue related to the detention of the complainant’s son and as detentions take place on Monday – Thursdays only, the child’s mother was informed as the complainant did not have access to the school on those days. The witness stated that the complainant was not treated less favourably in respect of the notification of detention or in respect of any interactions in respect of any of the school’s notification procedures. The witness further stated in evidence that there were no issues where members of Án Garda Siochána were called to the school on 9th August 2024 or 8th September 2024 as claimed by the complainant and any reference to that issue relates to the previous complaint submitted to the Adjudication Services of the WRC.

Name of respondent

I note the respondent’s position in respect of the correct respondent to the complaint. This was not disputed by the complainant. Accordingly, the correct name of the respondent is reflected in the title of this adjudication decision.

Applicable Law

Section 3(1) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 provides as follows:

3(1) For the purposes of this Act discrimination shall be taken to occur—

(a) where 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) or, if appropriate, subsection (3B),] (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,

(b) where a person who is associated with another person—

(i) is treated, by virtue of that association, less favourably than a person who is not so associated is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, and

(ii) similar treatment of that other person on any of the discriminatory grounds would, by virtue of paragraph (a), constitute discrimination,

or

(c) where an apparently neutral provision would put a person referred to in any paragraph of section 3(2) at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons, unless the provision is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.

Burden of Proof

Section 38A (1) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 provides as follows:

38A (1) Where in any proceedings, facts are established by or on behalf of a person from which it may be presumed that prohibited conduct has occurred in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.

(2) This section is without prejudice to any other enactment or rule of law in relation to the burden of proof in any proceedings which may be more favourable to the person.

(3) Where, in any proceedings arising from a reference of a matter by the Authority to the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission under section 23(1), facts are established by or on behalf of the Authority from which it may be presumed that prohibited conduct or a contravention mentioned in that provision has occurred, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.

Conclusions

I have carefully considered the written and oral submissions of the parties and the evidence adduced at the adjudication hearing. I note that the complainant has previously referred complaints to the WRC alleging discrimination against the same respondent. The respondent noted that the issue regarding the guards being called was addressed in that referral.

The complainant asserts that he is being discriminated against, victimised and harassed on thegrounds ofgender, race, age and civil status. The issue appears to be his treatment by the school principal in respect of issues concerning his son’s detention and other issues of dissatisfaction to the complainant regarding correspondence being issued by the school by text message with links to documents relating to notifications from the school. In my view, the school principal clearly outlined the reasons why the child’s mother would be consulted regarding the child’s detention and that this was no different to others who were in the same situation irrespective of their gender, race age or civil status. Having considered the issue, I find that the complainant has not established facts that would infer that the school principal has discriminated against, harassed or victimised the complainant. In all the circumstances of the compliant, I find that the complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination.

For the reasons stated above, I find that the complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination. Accordingly, I find that the complaint is not well founded.

Prima facie case of discrimination