Complainant

Respondent

Parties

James  McCarthy

Susi

Representatives

Self

David Andrews Kate McMahon & Associate Solicitors LLP  Stephen O’Sullivan BL

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00073030-001

30/06/2025

The Complainant alleges that he was discriminated against in relation to the granting of a maintenance grant directly connected to his third level studies. The Respondent alleges that the complaint is statute barred.

The Complainant’s response to the Respondent’s preliminary application is as follows:

The Complainant agrees with the Respondent’s submissions in relation to the dates of the application outcomes and appeals. However, the Respondent had other internal appeals pending in addition to the four outlined in the Respondent’s submissions, and it is those matters that bring this application within the statutory time limits.

The Complainant was informed that he needed to specifically address the issue of “exceptional circumstances” in his application. He immediately addressed this issue and correctly submitted the exceptional circumstances form in October 2024.

The Complainant believes that this application was not considered by SUSI at first instance, despite the Complainant specifically requesting that it be considered. No decision was made by SUSI on that issue at that stage. The Respondent closed the file following the outcome of the appeal but never informed the Complainant of its decision in relation to the exceptional circumstances’ application.

The Complainant was not informed of the refusal of his exceptional circumstances’ application until February 2025. There was no mention of the exceptional circumstances issue in the first-instance decision. The issue did, however, form part of the appeal. There was no mention of it in the appeal decision either.

In late January or early February 2025, following the lapse of 60 days, the Complainant emailed SUSI to ask what had happened to his “exceptional circumstances” application. He was informed that the matter had already been dealt with on 4 November 2024 and that the file had been closed.

Accordingly, the Complainant submits that the last act of discrimination occurred in February 2025. The complaint was filed with the WRC on 30 June 2025, which was well within the six-month period permitted under the Act.

Preliminary Application:

The Respondent submits that the Complainant’s claim is out of time pursuant to section 41(6).

The Respondent’s position is that the relevant acts complained of arose in the period between 28 August 2024 and 26 November 2024. The original refusal of the Complainant’s grant application was issued on 28 August 2024. The Complainant subsequently appealed that decision, and on 20 September 2024 the SUSI Appeals Officer affirmed the original decision.

The Complainant subsequently sought consideration under the exceptional circumstances process. He made that request on 4 October 2024 and submitted supporting documentation on 25 and 29 October 2024. The Respondent  issued a further refusal on 4 November 2024. The Respondent submits that the documentation submitted by the Complainant on 25 and 29 October 2024 in relation to exceptional circumstances was considered when that decision was made.

The Complainant then appealed to the Student Grants Appeals Board (“SGAB”). On 26 November 2024, the SGAB upheld the decision of the Awarding Authority. It is evident from the outcome letter that the exceptional circumstances portion of the appeal did form part of the appeal and the decision. The Respondent submits that the SGAB is an independent statutory body and that this was the final decision in the statutory appeal process.

The Respondent submits that the subsequent correspondence or further appeal submitted by the Complainant on 11 December 2024 did not give rise to a further decision or extend the statutory time limit, as the Complainant had already exhausted the statutory appeal process.

Within the relevant statutory time from it is submitted that the Complainant had the capacity to correspond with the Respondent in relation to the issue and also to file the ES1 on 15 March 2025. In those circumstances there are no grounds upon which he can rely that could allow the Adjudication officer to exercise her discretion to extend the time pursuant to S41 (8) of the Act.

Accordingly, the Respondent submits that the complaint was presented outside the six-month period prescribed by section 41(6) of the 2015 Act,  and is therefore statute-barred.

The Respondent also submits, separately, that the Complainant did not comply with the requirement to notify the Respondent within two months of the relevant act. The Respondent’s position is that time may have commenced from the original decision of 28 August 2024 and that the subsequent appeal did not restart the statutory period. Alternatively, if the latest relevant decision is taken to be the SGAB decision of 26 November 2024, the ES1 notification dated 15 March 2025 was also outside the applicable two-month period.

For these reasons, the Respondent submits that the Complainant’s claim is out of time and should not proceed to a substantive determination.

The Respondent raised a preliminary objection that the Complainant’s claim was statute barred pursuant to section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015.

The Respondent submitted that the acts complained of occurred between 28 August 2024 and 26 November 2024. The Complainant’s original grant application was refused on 28 August 2024. Following an appeal, the SUSI Appeals Officer affirmed that decision on 20 September 2024. The Complainant subsequently sought consideration under the exceptional circumstances process. He made that request on 4 October 2024 and submitted supporting documentation on 25 and 29 October 2024. A further refusal issued on 4 November 2024. The Respondent submitted that the documentation provided by the Complainant in October 2024 was considered in reaching that decision.

The Complainant subsequently appealed to the Student Grants Appeals Board. On 26 November 2024, the SGAB upheld the decision of the Awarding Authority. The Respondent submitted that this was the final decision in the statutory appeal process. It further submitted that the Complainant’s subsequent correspondence and further appeal of 11 December 2024 did not constitute a further decision and could not extend or renew the statutory time limit.

The Complainant accepted the dates of the various application outcomes and appeals but submitted that he had pursued a separate exceptional circumstances process. He stated that he had been advised to submit an exceptional circumstances application and did so in October 2024. He maintained that this application was not properly considered at first instance and that he was not informed of the outcome until February 2025, when he contacted SUSI to ascertain what had happened to the application. He submitted that the last act of discrimination therefore occurred in February 2025 and that his complaint, presented to the Workplace Relations Commission on 30 June 2025, was within the statutory six-month period.

Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides for the presentation of a complaint to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission within six months from the date of the occurrence of the alleged contravention.

I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the parties in relation to this preliminary matter.

It is not disputed that the Complainant’s original grant application was refused on 28 August 2024, that the SUSI Appeals Officer affirmed that decision on 20 September 2024, that a further refusal issued on 4 November 2024 following the exceptional circumstances process, and that the SGAB upheld the decision of the Awarding Authority on 26 November 2024.

I accept the Respondent’s submission that the SGAB decision of 26 November 2024 was the final decision in the statutory appeal process. In particular, I note that the Respondent's submission confirms that the exceptional circumstances documentation submitted by the Complainant in October 2024 was considered in the context of the further decision of 4 November 2024 and that the exceptional circumstances issue formed part of the appeal to the SGAB.

I have also considered the Complainant’s submission that he was not informed of the outcome of his exceptional circumstances application until February 2025. However, the evidence before me does not establish that a new decision or a further act of alleged discrimination occurred in February 2025. Rather, the correspondence at that time arose from the Complainant’s enquiry as to the status of a matter which, according to the Respondent’s evidence, had already been determined on 4 November 2024 and subsequently considered as part of the appeal to the SGAB.

Accordingly, I do not find that the correspondence in February 2025 constitutes a fresh act of discrimination for the purposes of section 41(6).

I have also considered whether there is any basis upon which the statutory period could be extended. The Complainant was actively corresponding with the Respondent during the relevant period. In particular, he pursued the exceptional circumstances process, submitted documentation in October 2024, pursued an appeal to the SGAB and subsequently corresponded with the Respondent regarding the status of his application.

It is also clear from the evidence that the Complainant had the capacity to pursue the matter within the relevant statutory period. He was able to correspond with the Respondent concerning his application and, importantly, he was able to serve an ES1 notification on the Respondent on 15 March 2025. I therefore find that the evidence does not establish any circumstance which prevented the Complainant from pursuing his complaint within the statutory period.

For the purposes of section 41(6), the latest date on which the alleged discriminatory act can properly be identified is 26 November 2024, being the date of the SGAB decision. The complaint was presented to the Workplace Relations Commission on 30 June 2025. This was more than six months after 26 November 2024. I therefore find that the complaint was not presented within the period prescribed by section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015. Having regard to that finding, and in circumstances where I have found no basis for an extension of time, I find that the Complainant’s claim is statute barred.

Accordingly, the Respondent’s preliminary application is upheld. The complaint fails.

The complaint fails

Statute of limitations. Discrimination. Exceptional Circumstances.