Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Paul  Geoghegan

Amazon Data Services (Ireland) Limited

Representatives

Cathereine McVeigh BL, Rachel Cody Sol., Eversheds Sutherland LLP

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-00074363-001

14/08/2025

This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing.

I informed the parties that pursuant to the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 coming into effecton the 29th of July 2021 and where there is potential for a serious and/or direct conflict in the evidence between the parties to a complaint, then an oath or affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me. I confirm that I have administered the said Affirmation as appropriate and in order that matters might progress. It is noted that the giving of false statement or evidence is an offence.

The specific Details of the Dispute are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form dated the 14th of August 2025 and I am looking at perceived acts of discrimination in the six-month period immediately preceding that date.

At the completion of the hearing, I did take the time to carefully review all the oral evidence together with the written submissions made by the parties. I have noted the respective position of the parties.  I am not required to provide a line-by-line assessment of all the evidence and submissions that I have considered. Any matter not specifically addressed is deemed superfluous to the main findings.  I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held that a

“…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one.  Only broad reasons need be given…”. 

The Complainant was not represented and made his own case. When it came time to hear the Complainant’s evidence, the Complainant agreed to make an Affirmation to tell the truth. The Complainant provided me with documents in advance of the hearing which substantiated his case.

The Complainant additionally relied on the submission set out in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which read as follows:

To the Director General, Workplace Relations Commission

I am writing to file a complaint against Amazon Web Services (AWS) under the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015. I was unfairly treated and discriminated against on the grounds of my disability, as AWS failed to provide reasonable accommodations in a timely manner. This resulted in my application process being terminated before I had the opportunity to complete a critical interview stage.

Timeline of Events and Allegations

• June 20, 2025: I submitted applications for several Software Development Engineer roles at AWS.

• July 3, 2025: During a call with recruiter Svitlana Kravchenko, I disclosed my disability and the need for accommodation for the interview process.

• July 9, 2025: After experiencing technical issues with a follow up informational meeting link, I informed another recruiter, Divya Teja, that "I'm blind so it's hard for me to tell if you're actually here or not". This demonstrated that the technical issues had not been resolved and that I had to repeatedly communicate my needs to different contacts within AWS.

• July 28, 2025: After multiple follow-up attempts on my part, Svitlana Kravchenko informed me she had finally "reached out to our ACAT team" and filed a request for an interview. An email from ACAT on the same day confirmed receipt. This marked a significant delay of nearly four weeks from my initial disclosure.

• August 1, 2025: The ACAT team confirmed they would arrange a technical check session to test my screen reader and browser with their platforms.

• August 6, 2025: I was informed by phone that the position had been filled.

• August 7, 2025: An email from the ACAT team notified me that my accommodation case was being closed, confirming "there is no pending action from the DLS end".

Details of the Specific Allegations

The email correspondence shows AWS was aware of my need for reasonable accommodation from July 3rd. Despite this, it took them nearly three weeks to formally start the accommodation process. This delay created a barrier that prevented me from completing the technical check for the coding interview, which was a necessary step to proceed. The company's failure to handle my request efficiently is evidenced by the communication gaps and the involvement of multiple recruiters. The accommodation process, instead of facilitating my interview, became a bottleneck. The final closure of my accommodation case on August 7, the day after I was told the position was filled, provides undeniable evidence of a direct link between the unresolved accommodation and the termination of my candidacy.

Link Between Grounds and Alleged Discrimination

The delay and subsequent termination of my candidacy were a direct result of AWS's failure to provide a reasonable accommodation for my disability. Their slow internal process for addressing my needs placed me at a significant disadvantage compared to other candidates. This constitutes a failure to uphold their legal obligation and is a clear case of discrimination on the grounds of disability.

Legal Points

1. Duty to Provide Reasonable Accommodation: Section 16 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 places a positive obligation on employers to take "appropriate measures" to enable a person with a disability to have access to employment. AWS's delay in providing a technical check was a failure to meet this duty.

2. Indirect Discrimination: The requirement to use a specific live coding platform without a timely, accessible alternative for candidates with disabilities can be seen as indirectly discriminatory.

3. Failure to Engage in Good Faith: The protracted and inconclusive communications, which ultimately resulted in the position being filled before the accommodation process was complete, demonstrate a lack of good faith in their engagement with my request.

No objection was raised to any of the materials relied upon by the Complainant in making his case. The evidence adduced by the Complainant was challenged as appropriate by the Respondent’s Representative.

The Complainant alleges that he was discriminated against on the basis of his disability in the Respondent’s handling of his job application and interview process.

Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained by the Complainant in the first instance. The Complainant must establish facts which tend to disclose that there is a prima facie case of discrimination.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. 

The Respondent had full legal representation at this hearing. The Respondent provided me with a written submissions dated 6th of February 2026. I have additionally heard from a number of witnesses for the Respondent. The Recruiter DT, the Accommodation Consultant RN and the Recruitment Manager LS all gave evidence. No objection was raised in connection with any of the documentary evidence relied upon by the Respondent in the course of making its case. All evidence was heard following an Affirmation.  The Respondent witnesses were questioned by the Complainant.

The Respondent rejects that there has been any discrimination.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

I have carefully considered the evidence adduced herein. The Complainant is someone with significant visual impairment and for the purposes of the Employment Equality Acts, the Complainant has a disability.

The Complainant applied online for a position with Amazon Data Services. The position was that of a Software Development Engineer which is considered to be a senior role within the Respondent. The application was submitted on the 20th of June 2025. It is worth noting that the job description as advertised came with an assurance that the Respondent considers itself to be an equal opportunities employer aiming to employ a diverse workforce. The form invites potential candidates to refer to the relevant site for any assistance, stating:

Our inclusive culture empowers Amazonians to deliver the best results for our customers. If you have a disability and need a workplace accommodation or adjustment during the application and hiring process, including support for the interview or onboarding process, please visit ….

I would have to accept – per the agreed evidence - that the proposed process for finding a candidate was anticipated to be a lengthy process as there were various steps to be undertaken by candidates. These included:

(1) Stage 1: Recruiter Phone Screen;

(2) Stage 2: Business Phone Screen; and

(3) Stage 3: Onsite Phone Screen

This is important to note as the Respondent is relying on its own assertion that a job at this level could be expected to take up to six months to fill. To be fair to the Complainant, he did not reject this assertion. The Recruitment Manager described the proposed post as significant and the average time they would expect to take to fill it would be 189 days.

Within two weeks of making the application (by July 3rd 2025) the Complainant was contacted by a recruiter (SK) who engaged in a phone call with the Complainant. The Complainant had been advised of this upcoming phone call by a system of prompts on the 1st and 2nd of July. The Complainant says that he explained to SK that he had a disability. SK seemingly said that this would be accommodated. Unfortunately, SK then went on holidays (as of July 12th) and as she was not available to give evidence for the Respondent, it is not clear if she had flagged the issue with her colleagues before departing though I note that the Recruitment Manager LS stated that a ticket had been raised with the accommodation team.

Thereafter, on the 7th of July the Complainant is sent confirmation of registration for a group call (to explain Amazon’s Phone Interview Preparation) scheduled for the 8th July. The purpose of the group call is to prepare him (and all other candidates) for the phone screening interview. LS suggested that the prep calls help put candidates at their ease and gets them thinking about the types of questions that will be asked.

The Complainant communicated with the recruiter, SK, that he had not received his invitation to the meeting, and she ensured that he got one.

On the 8th of July 2025 a group interview preparation call was scheduled. This was a group call made to all candidates wherein the agenda was to advise candidates how the process would work and what preparation might be of assistance. Unfortunately, this group call (which I understand was attended by up to 30 people) had to be abandoned due to technical issues. The call is cancelled for all candidates. The technical fault lay with the Respondent.

The Complainant was contacted on the 9th of July by a second recruiter DT trying to re-arrange a group call. This does not suit the complainant who is having technical issues with his computer.

In the aftermath, the Complainant was contacted directly to determine what the Complainant had gotten out of the group call. DT invites the Complainant to a one-to one meeting to provide the information that was to be covered on the group call. DT goes so far as to share her calendar with the Complainant to allow him to choose a date and time that is most suitable to him. The Complainant chooses 14 July and a meeting was set up on 14 July 2025 between the Complainant and the recruiter DT. The Respondent has invited me to find that this one-to-one meeting might be classified as a reasonable accommodation. The Complainant says that the information given at this meeting was similar to the information already heard by him at the group meeting. The Complainant was told that there would be a coding interview to assess his skills. DT said in evidence that the Complainant actively engages with this meeting and had his questions answered. Per DT, the Complainant appeared content with how he was accommodated and did not raise any issues with the process. The Complainant was somewhat more circumspect suggesting that the meeting was not personal, and the information given was as if all 30 people were on the line. In any event, at the end of this call the Complainant was ready to engage with the first step in the process outlined above and have a phone screening interview.

On the 17th of July 2025 the Complainant emails asking when the first interview is likely to be set up? A recruitment co-ordinator comes back to say that KS (the recruiter originally assigned to the Complainant) will help with this query. A second communication on the 17th of July from a Ms. C confirms SK is away and that Ms C will handle his file in absentia.

In the end there is no further communication until SK herself returns and communicates with the Complainant on the 28th of July stating that she is still waiting on the Accommodations team to come back to her and has filed a request for the first interview. I accept that the email herein (from SK dated the 28th of July) is relaxed and filled with chummy exclamation points and perhaps does not sufficiently reflect or understand the concern being felt by the Complainant who has not been progressed through any part of the interview process since the 14th of July on which date he was simply told how the interview process was going to work. This is a two-week hiatus. A regrettable delay caused through no fault of the Complainant. However, it does appear that the delay arose out of the fact that KS had been away on annual leave and I cannot attribute any act of discrimination direct or indirect arising therefrom.

I note that the Accommodation team also communicated with the Complainant on the 28th of July stating that it will be reaching out shortly. Unbeknownst to the Complainant the Accommodation team does liaise with the Recruiters (on the 29th of July 2025) concerning the Complainant as follows: -

Hi Team,

I'm reaching out regarding a candidate, Paul, who is currently being considered for the Software Development Engineer position in Dublin, Ireland (Job ID: 3012781).

Paul has disclosed that they are blind, and I would like to inquire about possible accommodations for the technical assessment phase of their interview process.

Could we please:

1. Explore available accessibility accommodations for the coding assessment, or

2. Consider waiving the coding assessment and replacing it with an alternative evaluation method, such as a technical phone screening

Please advise on the best way to proceed to ensure an inclusive interview process. Thank you for your assistance.

Best regards,

Applicant–Candidate Accommodation Team (ACAT)

From what I can understand from this communication, the Accommodation team has pushed the issue back to the Recruiters to see if there is a way around a particular aspect of the test to be conducted by all the candidates.

There is a suggestion that SK had not really communicated with the Accommodation Team directly until the 28th of July. She was not available to give evidence. The Recruiting Manager did suggest that whilst there might have been a delay, that this did not amount to an egregious breach of the process as the process was still in its infancy and there were plenty of hurdles still to be overcome by the Complainant and each of the other candidates. I note also that this recruitment competition was all being run and managed online and therefore that different candidates are at different stages of progression might seem more acceptable.

On the 31st of July the Accommodation team contact the Complainant to make enquiries about the screen reading software the Complainant uses to allow for a pre interview test to ensure compatibility with the Amazon system. The plan is to establish compatibility and proceed with a 60-minute virtual interview with a coding exercise included. Again, behind the scenes the evidence shows that there has been a significant amount of communication between the Recruiters the Accommodation team and the Disability team working out how to ensure the Complainant has an inclusive interview experience.

I note that the Accommodation Consultant overseeing this process (RN) recorded that he had had a phone call with the complainant on the 29th of July. He recalls several conversations with the Complainant and felt that there was good communication and that the accommodation team was resolving any issues needed to ensure a smooth interview process. I understand a date had been set for the interview.

The Respondent evidence is that there were four candidates in the running, including the Complainant. None of these people ever progressed through to the selection stage. I understand one candidate did get through one or two of the steps that the Complainant was still waiting to complete. However, the evidence is that the Complainant was not in any way disadvantaged by this state of affairs.  The Respondent evidence is that none of the other three candidates who applied for the L6 role at this time were successful due to the hiring pause. This was entirely unconnected to the Complainant’s disability they said.

SL gave evidence that the direction from above came to terminate the process in early August 2025. She said that four senior roles had been filled in May of 2025 and that Management determined that approved targets for hiring had already been hit and that there would be no more hires. All recruitments in the pipeline were put on hold. SL said that each of the candidates for this role were contacted by phone and email advising that the competition had been stopped in its tracks. The idea behind the dual communications, she said, is try and give as good an experience as possible and to advise that applications remain on file. SL as the recruiting Manager said that she never got the impression that there was a difficulty with the Complainants experience.

I have given some thought to how these events unfolded from the Complainant’s perspective. I fully understand that the Complainant was disappointed to learn that the competition was over before he had even moved to the first phase. I accept that there was a two-week delay in getting the Complainant set up with the Accommodation team. However, in a six-month process this does not seem like an automatic disadvantage. I was in fact impressed with the evidence offered concerning the efforts made by this Respondent to ensure the Complainant’s disability would be accommodated. The time taken to ensure the right accommodation is given was not inordinate and was not begrudgingly given. There seemed to me to be a very real desire to ensure the Complainant was given whatever accommodation was required to allow him to succeed alongside the other candidates. The role herein was never filled. All candidates were disappointed by this outcome.

On balance therefore I cannot find that the Complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination.

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

CA-00074363-001 – The complaint herein fails in circumstances where the Complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination which the Respondent had to rebut.