ADJ-00034705 - Workplace Relations Commission Stephen Kerr V Cambio Investments Ltd T/A Centra Stoneybatter

• Judgment Date: 25 January 2023
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Docket Number: ADJ-00034705
• Hearing Date: 16 August 2022
• Respondent: Cambio Investments Ltd T/A Centra Stoneybatter

Procedure:

On the 5th August 2021, the complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to the Equal Status Act. The complaint was scheduled for adjudication on the 16th August 2022. The complainant attended the hearing. Claire O’Mahony and Marie O’Mahony attended for the respondent.

In accordance with section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Background:

The complainant outlines that he was discriminated against on grounds of disability because he was told that he had to wear a mask to shop at the respondent; the respondent denies the claim.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant outlined that he was discriminated against while attending the respondent shop on the 28th February and 12th May 2021. On the first occasion, a security guard told the complainant to wear a mask and instructed the counter staff not to serve the complainant, who then could not pay for certain items. The Gardai were called and the incident lasted 50 minutes. It ended with the complainant’s arrest. These proceedings were later struck out. The complainant outlined that he had an exemption on medical grounds from wearing a mask. On the second occasion, the same security guard would not let the complainant enter the store and the complainant was served at the door of the shop. He outlined that the respondent went beyond what was permissible in the Statutory Instrument by directing that he not be served and requiring proof of his exemption.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent outlined that the complainant had refused to abide by their mandatory mask wearing policy. They had a duty of care to their staff and customers. They did their best to accommodate the complainant and others who could not wear a face mask including doing their shopping for them. In cross-examination, the respondent denied going beyond the S.I. The respondent outlined that management had directed that customers without masks would not be served.

Findings and Conclusions:

This is a complaint of discrimination pursuant to the Equal Status Act. I note the medical certificate submitted by the complainant and I accept that he cannot wear a face covering for the stated medical reason. Both parties referred to the emergency legislation introduced to address the...