Case Number: DEC-S2014-002. Equality Tribunal

• Docket Number: DEC-S2014-002
• Date: 01 February 2014
• Court: Equality Tribunal

THE EQUALITY TRIBUNAL EQUAL STATUS ACTS 2000-2011 Decision DEC–S2014–002 PARTIES Mr A (on behalf of his daughter) and Board of Management of a Community School File References: ES/2012/0048 Date of Issue: 10 February 2014

Keywords: Conditions of participating in education – discrimination - disabilitty

1. Claim

1.1. The case concerns a claim by Mr A that the Board of Management of a Community School discriminated against his daughter (hereinafter the complainant) on the grounds her disability contrary to Section 3(2)(g) of the Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2011.

1.2. The complaint was referred under the Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2011 to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 27 April 2012. On 11 September 2013, in accordance with his powers under S. 75 of the Employment Equality Acts and under the Equal Status Acts, the Director delegated the case to me, Hugh Lonsdale, Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part III of the Acts. On this date my investigation commenced. Submissions were received from both parties and, as required by Section 25(1) of the Equal Status Acts and as part of my investigation, I proceeded to hold a joint hearing of the case on 13 November 2013.

2. Complainant’s Submission

2.1. The complainant submits that she has Asperger’s Syndrome, which is an Autistic Spectrum Disorder and suffers from ADHD.

2.2. The complainant submits that there was an incident on 3 February 2011 involving herself and two other pupils. The complainant was suspended indefinitely from the school. The suspension lasted for seven weeks. No action was taken against the other two students involved. The investigation into the incident did not involve the complainant’s parents, and did not include a statement from the complainant. The complainant was not told how that decision could be appealed. Subsequently the suspension was appealed and overturned by the Department of Education and Science in May 2011.

2.3. The complainant submits the respondent took no account of her condition and refers to a letter of 17 February 2011 from a clinical psychologist to a principal social worker which states that his daughter would be prone to bullying due to her social skills difficulties.

2.4. The complainant returned to school in March and interim arrangements were made. She was placed alone in a library, away from the school. This meant she did not mix with other pupils and was isolated.

2.5. The complainant submits that when she returned to school after the summer holidays in September 2011 there were issues about the subjects she was allowed to take. She was assigned classes for four hours per day on four days per week and she was sent home when she had no lesson, even when there were only short gaps between lessons. There were incidents because of her disability and they were asked to take her out of school on a number of occasions.

2.6. The complainant states the recommendations of a National Educational Psychologist were not put into effect.

2.7. From September until December 2011 the complainant’s parents had four meetings with the deputy head, the year head and the special needs co-ordinator. The parents tried to have the Special Needs Assistant (SNA) removed from the classroom as this was acting as a trigger to the complainant but Mr A submits the school said the SNA was there to stop their daughter from distracting the teacher. The last meeting included a social worker, a child protection social worker and the Special Needs Officer for the county but the parents were not happy with the provisions being made for their daughter and said they would take their daughter out of school. The complainant was removed from the school in November 2011.

2.8. After a long discussion with their GP and a psychologist the parents decided it would be better for their daughter if she did not return to school.

3. Respondent’s Submission

3.1. The respondent submits that the 3 February 2011 incident was serious and their investigations showed that the complainant had attacked and repeatedly threatened another student and was suspended by a decision of the Board of Management made the following day.

3.2. On16 February 2011 the Principal wrote to the complainant’s parents stating the reasons for the suspension. He also confirmed that the SENO, EWO, school psychiatrist and the HSE had been informed of the incident and no decision would be made about her return to school until a meeting was held with all interested parties.

3.3. On 12 April 2011 the Principal wrote to the parents again confirming that an investigation into the incident had been carried out, that a number of meetings had been held and that the 1:1 tuition she was receiving was enhancing the daughter’s academic work.

3.4. The respondent submits that the school made many efforts to re-integrate the complainant into school until December 2011 when the parents decided she would not be returning.

...