Case Number: ADJ-00011282. Workplace Relations Commission.

• Docket Number: ADJ-00011282
• Hearing Date: 09 March 2018
• Date: 01 October 2018
• Year: 2018
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Parties: A Complainant V A Public Body

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000following 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.

Background:

The Complainant says that he has been discriminated against on grounds of religion in the provision of goods or services by the Respondent. He is a Roman Catholic Evangelical Christian.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant says that on 17th and 18th May 2017 he was discriminated against by the Respondent due to his religious beliefs and outlook on homosexuality. The Complainant sent a number of emails to the Respondent requesting them to apply to be joined as a Notice Party to proceedings which were to take place on 18 May 2017. On 17th May 2017 the Complainant telephoned the Respondent, to request it to have a legal representative apply to the High Court the next day to become a Notice Party in an appeal hearing by the Data Protection Commissioner and Google Ireland Limited (Notice Party) of a Circuit Court decision. The Circuit Court decision under appeal was a successful appeal by the Complainant of the Data Protection Commissioner’s refusal of a complaint against Google who had previously refused to take down a URL relating to the Complainant. The URL displayed reference to the Complainant’s name, location and as a “homophobic candidate”. The Complainant sought that the Respondent be joined to the proceedings as a Notice party to make legal submissions in his support, in the event he was unsuccessful in his appeal that there is tacit acceptance by the Judiciary that it is acceptable for gay perverts to engage in homosexual acts in broad daylight on a public beach in view of or in proximity to children, and that anyone expressing disapproval by raising public awareness was homophobic and risked being smeared indelibly on the internet. The Complainant made two attempts to telephone the Respondent’s main number after being firstly told to contact his local office. The local office told him they would only accede to the request if it was in the form of a High Court Order. He subsequently spoke to a member of staff on the telephone, and again requested a solicitor to attend the hearing the following day to become a Notice Party. The member of staff became hostile saying “oh no we won’t be sending a solicitor” and refused to identify herself and hung up. Given the mandate of the public body the Complainant says this is disgraceful behaviour that it refused to become involved. At the Appeal Hearing, no representative from the Respondent appeared or applied to become a Notice Party.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent is a service provider under the Equal Status Acts 2000-2015. The complaint alleges discrimination around 17 or 18 May 2017. This was due to the refusal by the Respondent to accede to the Complainant’s request that it be joined as a Notice Party in High Court proceedings by the Complainant against the Data Protection Commissioner and Google. The Respondent denies discrimination on the religion ground as a consequence of his views in relation to homosexuality. The Respondent denies that it refused to provide a “service” and it says that the request by the Complainant that it would request to be joined as a Notice Party in legal proceedings cannot be construed to be a “service” or one that it could be reasonably expected to provide, and any refusal to do so cannot be interpreted as amounting to an act of discrimination. If in the alternative, the refusal to agree to make an application to become a Notice Party in the Complainant’s legal proceedings amounts to a refusal to provide a service, it is submitted that the Complainant has not established any facts from which it could be inferred that the reason...