Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A mother of children with disabilities

A transport provider

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00071439-001

08/05/2025

The Complainant has two children who were born with a visual impairment which seriously impacts their ability to move around unaided. When out in public she is required to keep them in a buggy which is a twin/ side-by-side front facing buggy. At the time of the alleged discrimination the children were of an age where they would assumed to be in a buggy anyway and as such their disability was a hidden one.

 In February 2025 the Complainant took them on the bus which she does sometimes as a novelty. When getting on the bus the Complainant alleges the driver told her that she would need to “tip one out” which she found offensive. The driver disputes this but says he suggested she might “take one out” as she was having difficulty getting the buggy on the bus.

The Complainant then got on the bus and clarified that her children had a hidden disability. She later submitted complaints that she was discriminated against in the provision of services on the basis of family status and disability.

In the hearing the Complainant clarified that she was pursuing a claim of indirect discrimination related to disability and failure to provide reasonable accommodation. Removing one child from the buggy was not an option and she was subject to a condition of access that she couldn’t have complied with. She alleges she was treated differently than if she had been a parent with an able bodied child.

The Complainant made oral and written submissions and provided evidence under affirmation

Her two boys were born with visual impairment and need to be in buggy when in public, they are a flight risk as well as having issues navigating spatially. When they take the bus she makes sure they are always the last on as they end up taking a spot which is reserved for wheelchair users and she does not want to take that spot if it is needed by a wheelchair user.

When the bus arrived at their stop she had a moment of difficulty getting the buggy onboard and turned in towards the seating. The driver told her she “will have to tip one out” referring to her two children as if they were refuse. She had to tell him they were disabled and could not get out and she took her seat. She texted her mother and her partner straight away.

It was a bad experience and damaged her confidence in using the service going forward. She had had issues with the service in the past and had previously brought them to the WRC under this act and that complaint had been upheld.

The Respondent’s head of employee relations made oral and written submissions on their behalf. The Complainant and her children did travel on the service and were not prevented from using the service. If the driver had been asked he would have provided any assistance he could have.

The driver gave evidence under affirmation. He remembers the interaction and is clear that he did not say “tip” one of the children out. He is London Irish and would not use that terminology. He said “take” one of the children out. The driver has a strong cockney accent and may have been misheard. He was not telling the Complainant she had to take one of her children out of the buggy he was making a suggestion as he could see she had difficulty navigating the buggy.  

The Respondent’s accessibility officer provided evidence under affirmation related to the changes and improvements to access that the Respondent has brought in.

Section 3.1.a of this act provides that: discrimination shall be taken to occur 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).

Section 3.2 sets out the discriminatory grounds which identify the difference between any two persons on which discrimination is unlawful, including where one is a person with a disability and the other either is not or is a person with a different disability.

Section 3.1.b recognises that the Complainant, though she does not have a disability, might be discriminated against by her association with her children who do, specifically stating that: a person who is associated with another person 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  similar treatment of that other person on any of the discriminatory grounds would, by virtue of paragraph (a), constitute discrimination.

Section 3.1.c recognises that discrimination can occur indirectly, that is: 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.

Section 4 requires service providers: 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.

Section 5 prohibits service providers from discriminating in providing services.

Focusing on the claim as the Complainant framed it at the hearing I am not satisfied that a breach of the act occurred.

The Complainant raises the hypothetical comparator of a parent of an able-bodied child. To be more specific this would be a parent of two able bodied children in a twin buggy. Such a parent would be treated the same and have the suggestion of taking a child out of the buggy when it became unwieldy but would have been able to comply.  I accept the Complainant’s evidence that she could not comply with this request or suggestion.

This complaint of indirect discrimination overlaps with the obligation related to reasonable accommodation. As the Complainant could not comply with the request but the comparator could the Complainant would have been discriminated against if that request to take one of the children out of the buggy had been a requirement for her to have access to the service. However, it is accepted by the Complainant that she wasn’t prevented from using the service. She was still allowed and able to board the bus as her hypothetical comparator would have been.

She was not discriminated against as prohibited by Section 5 of the Act. 

I find that the complaint is not well founded.