Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Daniel  Corkery

Maureen's

Representatives

No Appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant

Ms Maureen Mc Laughlin, Proprietor.

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00072966-001

30/06/2025

On 30 June 2025, the Complainant submitted a complaint of Discrimination on gender grounds in relation to provision of goods/ services. He sought adjudication under section 21 Equal Status Act 2000.

On 14 July 2025, the WRC acknowledged the complaint and served the complaint on the Respondent.

On 31 July 2025, the Respondents legal representatives came to notice in the case.

On 2 July 2026, both parties were invited to attend a hearing in the case scheduled for 7 September 2026 in Cork.

The Respondent attended the hearing in person with the support of her partner.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant.

I have waited 5 days to seek to allow the complainant to a reasonable amount of time to explain if there were any exceptional circumstances surrounding his nonappearance at the hearing in his own case.

I have not received any details of communication or correspondence in that vein.

I am now obliged to move forward and complete my decision in this case.

On 30 June 2025, the complainant, Mr Daniel Corkery, submitted a complaint of Discrimination as a Lay Litigant.

In this complaint, he outlined that he had been discriminated on gender grounds in the course of his attendance at the Respondents licensed premises on 22 May 2025.

The complainant sought redress under Section 21 of the Equal Status Act 2000. He mentioned serving the respondent with an ES1 form on 25 May 2025 and mentioned receiving an ES2 response one day later.

These actions were contradicted in the narrative of the complaint

“I did not use an ES1 form due to being advised of its non-mandatory nature, nor did the owner reply using the ES2 …...”

1 Complainant stated that he had entered the premises at 22.15 hrs on 22 May 2025.

2 The Complainant engaged in conversation with two women.

3 He was refused service and was told it was for safety reasons. He left the bar.

“The refusal was applied solely on the basis of my gender and assumed harmful intentions tied to it.”

The Complainant submitted this amounted to Direct Discrimination under the Equal Status Act 2000-2018 namely Section 3(1) (a) and Section 3(2) (a)

The Complainant outlined that he had been embarrassed and distressed “at the time” which has endured.

He made a formal complaint but did not accept the response.

Preliminary Issue: The Complainantdid not attend the hearing and was not present to respond to the Preliminary Issue of Jurisdiction raised by the Adjudicator.

I commenced the hearing at 12.20 hrs so as to allow for any last-minute lateness or lack of familiarity with the building.

The file points to the Complainant living locally to the WRC office.

The Respondent operates a small, licensed premises and came to hearing to defend the case and counter the complainants stated case.

Ms McLaughlin confirmed that she had taken advice prior to hearing and remained appalled by the complainants unfounded allegations.

She felt very strongly that she had not discriminated against the complainant in this case.

Preliminary Issue:

The Adjudicator explained that she wished to raise a Preliminary Issue of Jurisdiction in the case.

She asked whether the licensed premises referred to in this case was a club in line with the Registration of Clubs Act 1904-1999?

Ms Mc Laughlin replied that it was not a club but a very small, licensed premises operated by bell access for security.

I explained that I had reservations surrounding my jurisdiction in the case as claims of Discrimination on licensed premises are heard in the District Court, notwithstanding that this mechanism is currently under review nationally. Note IHREC website.

I handed the respondent

1 The Intoxicating Liquor Act, 2003 and referenced Section 19(2) of that Act.

2 I also passed two recent decisions of the WRC

Lucy Joyce and Commiskey’s Bar and Restaurant, Blackhorse Ave ADJ 53755

Bridget Quilligan -Culligan and Unicorn Bars and Restaurant ltd, Unicorn Pub and Fables Restaurant                                                                                                  ADJ 52716

The Respondent accepted the application of Section 19(2) of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003.

Ms Mc Laughlin had additional no comments on these papers outside of a repetition that Discrimination had not been directed at the complainant on that night.

I explained that the complainant was required to discharge the burden of proof in the case.

In his unexplained absence, I would allow for 5 days in which to ascertain if anything exceptional had impeded his appearance at hearing.

Failing that, I would move to decision in the case.

I have been requested to reach a decision on whether the Complainant has been discriminated on gender grounds in relation to the provisions of goods and services on the licensed premises named in this case?

I have read the complaint form alongside the three emails attached. However, I did not have the benefit of the complainants’ presence at hearing. I am satisfied that he was notified of the hearing by letter and email to the address cited on the complaint form.

I was struck by the similarity of the name of the complainant and the notable author Daniel Corkery 1878 -1964. I have no means of validating the complainant’s actual identity.

The Complainant ha snot offered any rationale for his non-appearance at hearing.

ADJ-00060258 Notification of Adjudication Hearing Arrangements

 ADJ-00060258 Hearing Notice complainant.pdf (extract from hearing notice)

I have attached the above extract from the hearing notification which issued to the complainant at 19.38 hrs on 2 July 2026.

I had every intention of presenting a copy of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003 and the case law mentioned to each party at hearing and receive submissions from each party.

However, in the absence of the complainant, I could only share with the respondent and ask for a response.

The Complainant has advanced his claim under the Equal Status Act, 2000.

In my preparation for hearing, I had reservations on whether I could claim jurisdiction from this Act when Section 19 (2) of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 2003 was so clearly in being.

Preliminary Issue of Jurisdiction:

I must now decide this Preliminary Issue:

The question of whether I have jurisdiction to decide this case is addressed in Section 19 (2) of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 2003.

jurisdiction of District Court in cases of prohibited conduct on licensed premises.

19. — (1) In this section—

“Act of 2000” means the Equal Status Act 2000;

“Authority” means the Equality Authority;

“Court” means the District Court;

“discrimination” means discrimination within the meaning of the Act of 2000, but does not include discrimination in relation to—

(a) the provision of accommodation or any services or amenities related to accommodation, or

(b) ceasing to provide accommodation or any such services or amenities;

“Prohibited conduct” means discrimination against, or sexual harassment or harassment of, or permitting the sexual harassment or harassment of a person in contravention of Part II (Discrimination and Related Activities) of the Act of 2000 on, or at the point of entry to, licensed premises.

(2) A person who claims that prohibited conduct has been directed against him or her on, or at the point of entry to, licensed premises may apply to the District Court for redress.

This makes it clear that the Legislature has determined that claims of prohibited conduct / discrimination “on or at the point of entry to licensed premises” may apply to the District Court for redress.

The WRC is a creature of statute, and I am bound to follow the distinction between the Equal Status Act, 2000 and the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 2003 in this case.

The word “may apply to the District Court “carries an implied discretion that a potential complainant has options on the direction they seek a remedy in. This is ambiguous.

It is regrettable that the Complainant appears to have acted on unnamed advice which directed him not to serve an ES1 form in a claim filed under the Equal Status Act. An ES1 / ES2 may have shone an earlier light on the issue.

Section 21 of the Equal Status Act 2000 clarifies the matter of prior notification of a potential claim of prohibited conduct.

21(2) Before seeking redress under this section the complainant—

(a) shall, within 2 months after the prohibited conducted is alleged to have occurred, or, where more than one incident of prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred, within 2 months after the last such occurrence, notify the respondent in writing of—

(i) the nature of the allegation,

(ii) the complainant’s intention, if not satisfied with the respondent’s response to the allegation, to seek redress under this Act,

and

(b) may in that notification, with a view to assisting the complainant in deciding whether to refer the case to the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission or, as the case may be, the Circuit Court, question the respondent in writing so as to obtain material information and the respondent may, if the respondent so wishes, reply to any such questions.

(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2) the date of notification is the date on which the notification is sent, unless it is shown that the notification was not received by the respondent.

Perhaps, it is timely for me to remark on the different approaches laid out under the separate statutes for prohibited conduct.

Equal Status Act 2000 requires a pre notification of alleged Discrimination under that Act save for exceptionals circumstances provided in Section 21 (3(a) (ii)

This is not visibly replicated in the District Court for Section 19(1) and 19 (2).

I find that I cannot derive Jurisdiction from the Equal Status Act 2000 to make a decision in this claim as the Jurisdiction rests firmly within the walls of the District Court, for now, at least, as set down by Section 19(2) of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 2003. I am not a Judge of the District Court.

I find for the Respondent on the Preliminary Issue of Jurisdiction.

Therefore, I cannot take the matter any further. The claim is misconceived. I lack the jurisdiction to proceed.

I have found the claim is misconceived and dismiss it in accordance with Section 22(1) of the Equal Status Act, 2000.

Dismissal of claims.

22.— (1) The Director of the Workplace Relations Commission may dismiss a claim at any stage if of opinion that it has been made in bad faith or is frivolous, vexatious or misconceived or relates to a trivial matter.

(2) Not later than 42 days after the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission dismisses a claim under this section, the complainant may appeal against the decision to the Circuit Court on notice to the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission specifying the grounds of the appeal.

(3) On appeal the Court may affirm or quash the decision.

(4) No further appeal lies, other than an appeal to the High Court on a point of law.

Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.

I have found the claim is misconceived and dismiss it in accordance with Section 22(1) of the Equal Status Act, 2000.

Dismissal of Claim, lack Jurisdiction to proceed as misconceived.