ADJ-00045497 - Workplace Relations Commission A Court User v A District Court Judge

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 18 December 2023
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Date: 18 December 2023
• Hearing Date: 05 October 2023
• Docket Number: ADJ-00045497
• Respondent: A District Court Judge

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00045497

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Court User	A District Court Judge

Representatives Self-Represented

Complaint:

Act	Complaint Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000	CA-00055884-001	03/04/2023

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/10/2023

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Bríd Deering

Procedure:

In accordance with s 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 and to present any evidence relevant to the complaint.

This complaint, which was presented to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 3 April 2023, relates to conduct which is alleged to have occurred during court proceedings on 7 November 2022. Under the Equal Status Act 2000 a Complainant must notify the Respondent in writing of the alleged prohibited conduct prior to the referral of the complaint to the WRC. This notification must be sent within 2 months of the alleged occurrence of the prohibited conduct. In this case the notification was sent outside the 2-month time limit but within 4 months of the alleged prohibited conduct. The 2-month deadline may be extended by the Director General of the WRC to not more than 4 months where a Complainant sets out in writing reasonable cause for not notifying the Respondent of the alleged prohibited conduct within 2 months. By email dated 21 April 2023, the Complainant set out in writing the grounds for failing to notify the Respondent of the alleged prohibited conduct within the 2-month period. The WRC scheduled a hearing into the complaint for 5 October 2023.

A hearing into the complaint took place on 5 October 2023. The hearing was conducted in public at the hearing rooms of the WRC office in Carlow. The Complainant was sworn in. The Complainant did not call any witnesses. As the Respondent is not properly on notice of this complaint, I have exercised my discretion to anonymise this decision.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

Evidence of the Complainant (under oath) The Complainant claims he was discriminated against when a District Court Judge said to him “Mr , you cannot drink that water, that water is not for you”. The Complainant submitted that he was at the District Court and his case was called for hearing. He stood at the top of the court with his legal representative. The Complainant submitted that he poured water into a plastic cup which was on the table in front of him, but as he put the cup to his lips the Judge stated: “Mr , you cannot drink that water, that water is not for you”. The Complainant told the hearing that the Judge may have “taken a dislike” to him and may have been “irritated with him” as his case had been listed for 10am, but he had objected to the hearing going ahead because he believed that there had been a breach of a High Court Order in relation to his case. This objection was overruled by the Judge, and the case was then scheduled for hearing at 3pm the same day. The Complainant wondered why his case was pushed back to 3pm and he thought to himself that the Judge was thinking “I’ll teach him a lesson”. The Complainant submitted “I was appalled that someone like him could say that to me”. The Complainant emphasised to the hearing the use of the word ‘you’ by the Judge, and added “what did he mean by ‘you’? Who is entitled to drink it? Am I less equal to these people?” The Complainant added “I couldn’t believe it”. The Complainant submitted that throughout the day other persons attending court were free to drink the water. Further, there was no signage to say members of the public cannot drink the water. The Complainant submitted “why is the Judge entitled to drink water and I am not?” The Complainant submitted that he saw gardaí and legal professionals drinking the water so why was he the only person told he could not drink the water. In response to questions from the Adjudication Officer, the Complainant told the hearing that he did not know why the Judge said that to him, and that maybe the Judge was trying to protect the Court Service in relation to the breach of the High Court Order. The Complainant further submitted that maybe the Judge said that to him because he has often been told he looks and speaks like members of the traveller community. The local area has many members of the traveller community living there and he has been told in the past that he physically resembles some of these persons. The Complainant confirmed to the hearing that he is not a member of the traveller community. The Adjudication Officer noted that the Complainant had not selected the traveller community ground on the complaint form, nor had he mentioned discrimination on the traveller community ground in the narrative of the complaint form, and that the Complainant had selected the ‘disability’ ground only. The Complainant then submitted that he has a hidden disability and that perhaps that was a reason why the Judge said what he did. The Complainant added “I’m not saying categorically that’s why he said it, but it’s a possibility”. In response to a question from the Adjudication Officer as to the Judge’s knowledge or otherwise of the Complainant’s disability, the Complainant responded that he had a Jam card around his neck and the Judge “may have seen it”, and accordingly he may have been aware that he had a hidden disability, and that may have been the reason for treating him unfavourably. The Complainant added “I can’t speak his mind: it is a possibility that is why he told me not to drink the water”. The Complainant submitted that the correspondence from the Courts Service in advance of the hearing was an attempt to influence the WRC. The Complainant directed the hearing to Article 34 of Bunreacht na hÉireann, and specifically to the role of a Judge, and the declaration made by every Judge. The Complainant submitted that he accepted that a Judge was required to be impartial and that they may have immunity from suit, but that this immunity only applied to the carrying out of their judicial functions. The Complainant submitted that “water has nothing to do with...