Chartered Institute of Housing (Represented by Ms Caoimhe Ruigrok BL Instructed by Amoss, Solicitors) v Patricia O'Keefe

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 20 April 2018
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2018] 4 JIEC 2001
• Date: 20 April 2018
• Docket Number: FULL RECOMMENDATION DETERMINATION NO.EDA1828 ADJ-00004513 CA-00006005-001
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)

Labour Court (Ireland)

FULL RECOMMENDATION

ADE/17/60

DETERMINATION NO.EDA1828

ADJ-00004513 CA-00006005-001

PARTIES:

Chartered Institute of Housing (Represented by Ms Caoimhe Ruigrok BL Instructed by Amoss, Solicitors)

and

Patricia O'Keefe

DIVISION:

Chairman: Ms O'Donnell

Employer Member: Ms Connolly

Worker Member: Mr McCarthy

SECTION 83 (1), EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS, 1998 TO 2011

SUBJECT:

1 1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Decision No: ADJ-00004513.

BACKGROUND:

2 2. The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 83(1) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2011. A Labour Court hearing took place on 11 April 2018. The following is the Determination of the Court:

DETERMINATION:

Introduction

3 This is an appeal by Patricia O'Keefe (the Complainant) against the decision of an Adjudication Officer in her complaint of Discriminatory Dismissal on the ground of race and disability. The complaints were made pursuant to the Employment Equality Acts 1998–2015 (the Act).

4 The Adjudication Officer found that the complaints were not well-founded.

Background

5 Ms O'Keefe commenced employment with the Chartered Institute of Housing (the Respondent) on the 21 ^st April 2015 and was dismissed on the 31 ^st January 2016. It is the Complainant's contention that she was discriminated against on the grounds of race and an imputed disability. The Complainant alleges that the discrimination was both direct and indirect and that she also suffered harassment and victimisation which ultimately culminated in her dismissal. The specifics of the Complainant's initial complaints were difficult to identify so the Court held a case management conference in advance of the hearing.

6 The Respondent disputes these allegations and raised the issue of time limits. It is their contention that the issues that the Complaint alleges are acts of discrimination all occurred outside the cognisable period and even if some of the incidents fell within the time limits the Complainant had not established a prima facia case of discrimination. The Respondent contends that Ms O'Keeffe did not successfully complete her probation and that was why she was dismissed. The Court decided to deal with the issue of the cognisable period and the establishing of a prima facie case as preliminary issues. The Complainant lodged a complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission on 19th July 2016 therefore the cognisable period for the purpose of the claim is 20 ^th January 2016 to the 19 ^th July 2006.

Complainant's case

7 It is the Complainant's case that she was discriminated on the grounds of race and an imputed disability, that the discrimination was both direct and indirect and that she also suffered harassment and victimisation which ultimately culminated in her dismissal. The Complainant identified the following as Acts of discrimination that fall within the cognisable period:-

Failure to provide reasonable accommodation. It is the Complainant's case that a hearing impairment was imputed to her in the 18 ^th December 2015 and from that date till the end of her employment the Respondent was obliged to provide reasonable accommodation in relation to same. The Complainant informed the Court that she became aware of the imputed hearing...