ADJ-00038133 - Workplace Relations Commission Maria Nordwind V Coach Stores Ireland Limited

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 27 September 2023
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Hearing Date: 10 May 2023
• Docket Number: ADJ-00038133
• Respondent: Coach Stores Ireland Limited

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, 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.

I explained the changes arising from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland, and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 on 6/04/21 and the parties agreed to proceed in the knowledge that decisions issuing from the WRC would disclose their identities.

In relation to the medical certificate and exemption the Complainant referenced in her submission and produced also on the date of the hearing, I afforded the Respondent two working weeks the opportunity to respond. I also afforded the Complainant two working weeks with an opportunity to respond to the Respondents post hearing submission in relation to the medical documentation she furnished to support her claim.

I further afforded the Respondent the opportunity to make a further submission in relation to the Complainants post hearing submission, but they confirmed to the Workplace Relations Commission that they will not be submitting a further response.

In this regard, all of the submissions submitted have been considered herein.

While the parties are named in this decision, for the remainder of the document, I will refer to Mrs Maria Nordwind as “the Complainant” and Coach Stores Ireland Limited as “the Respondent.”

Background:

In summary, this complaint concerns a complaint by the Complainant in which she alleges that on the 06 January 2022 she was discriminated against, contrary to the Equal Status Act 2000, by the Respondent in the provision of goods and services in that she was discriminated against on grounds of disability when her claim of an exemption from the Covid Regulations regarding the wearing of a face covering was rejected by members of staff in the Respondents store. The Complainant further claims that she was discriminated against by the failure of the Respondent to provide reasonable accommodation for her disability on the date of the incident. The Respondent contends the Complainant claim that she has been discriminated against by the on the basis of disability in asking her to leave its store on 6 January 2022 for refusing to wear a face-covering. The Respondent submits that the Complainant has failed to establish that she falls within the protected ground of disability and as a result has not established any standing to maintain the within action. The Respondent further submits that no disability was identified either at the time of the incident or in the Complaint Form and that its actions in respect of the Complainant were justified by reference to the provisions of s.14(1) of the Equal Status Act 2000 in circumstances where the Respondent was obliged, at the time of the incident, by the provisions of the Health Act, 1947, and S.I. No. 296/2020 - Health Act 1947 (Section 31A – Temporary Restrictions) (Covid-19) (Face Coverings in Certain Premises and Businesses) Regulations 2020, to ensure that all customers of at its store were wearing face coverings.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

In summary, the Complainant alleges that she has been discriminated against by the Respondent on the basis of disability in asking her to leave its store on 6 January 2022 for being unable to wear a face covering. The Complainant further alleges that she was discriminated against, contrary to the Equal Status Act 2000, by the Respondent in the provision of goods and services in that she was discriminated against on grounds of disability when her claim of an exemption from the Covid Regulations regarding the wearing of a face covering was rejected by members of staff in the Respondents store. The Complainant also claims that she was discriminated against by the failure of the Respondent to provide reasonable accommodation for her disability on the date of the incident. The Complainant submits that on entering the store of the Respondent on the 06 January 2022 she was approached by one of the sales assistants asking about a face covering. The Complainant further submits that on informing the staff assistant that she is medically exempt, the staff attendant proceeded to inform her politely that it is mandatory under store policy. The Complainant stated that she responded once again informing the staff member that she is medically exempt and cannot wear a face covering due to her illness. The Complainant informed the hearing that the staff member informed her then that she cannot shop in the store without the use of a face covering. The Complainant noted from her submission that she again informed the staff member that she has a medical condition which prohibits her from wearing face covering and that it is not legally allowed to not allow her to shop in this store due to her disability. The Complainant further noted and acknowledged that the staff member appeared at this point to not know what to do or how to respond so the Complainant requested if she could speak to the store manager. The Complainant submitted at the hearing that the staff member she was dealing with up until this point was polite and the matter only escalated after she made the request to speak to the store manager. Shortly after making this request, the Complainant submitted that the store manager for the Respondent approached her and requested she use a face covering. The Complainant said that she explained to the store manager that she is medically exempt from wearing a face covering after which the store manager asked her to leave the store. The Complainant further explained that she then proceeded to inform the store manager that this is discrimination based on her medical condition and that she has a doctor’s note. The Complainant stated at this point the store manager repeatedly informed her that non masked people can’t be in the store and proceeded to show her the door with her hand and asked her again to leave. The Complainant told the hearing that at this point the conversation started to become quite heated, and the store manager again asked her asked her to leave the store. The Complainant submitted that she again asked the store manager if she knew what she was doing was illegal in which the store manager replied yes and again proceeded to wave her hand in the direction towards the door while asking her to leave her store. The Complainant further told the hearing that she asked a number of times if the store manager would like to see the relevant documentation in which the store manager continued to wave her hands multiple times saying ‘’ non masked people can’t be in my store’’ and asked her to leave. Prior to leaving the store she asked the store managers for her name and informed her that she would be making a formal complaint under the Equal Status Act. At the hearing, the Complainant noted that the reason she did not at any time produce the medical exemption and show it to the staff member was due to the tone of the conversation escalating with the store manager. On a further note, the Complaint explained that in the days following the incident the reason she did not send in her medical exemption with a request to resolve the matter and furthermore to be reasonably accommodated should she attempt to use the store again, was due to how she felt she was treated by the staff member and the staff manager in particular on the date of the incident, and how this made her feel after the incident that took place. It is in this context the Complainant submitted that she did not want to visit or purchase anything in the store again. While the Respondent did not dispute the recollection of events on the date of the incident, the Complainant also noted that she...