Latest news with #EqualStatusAct
Irish Daily Mirror
6 days ago
- Health
- Irish Daily Mirror
Practice must pay €10k to patient removed from medical card list after complaint
A Clare-based medical practice has been ordered to pay compensation of €10,000 to a former patient after it removed her from its medical card list after she had lodged a complaint against the clinic with the Workplace Relations Commission. The WRC ruled that the Saffron & Blue Medical Clinic in Clarecastle, Co Clare had breached the Equal Status Act by victimising the patient, Sarah Mangan. The clinic denied it had engaged in victimisation of Ms Mangan when it sent her a letter on February 13, 2023 in which it stated that her needs would be better served by another GP given the breakdown of trust in the doctor/patient relationship. Ms Mangan, who had been a patient of the practice for over 30 years, submitted a complaint against the practice to the WRC in December 2022. However, the WRC also made a separate ruling that the medical practice had not discriminated against her on grounds of disability over her complaints that she had been refused medical services over her inability to wear a face mask due to various medical conditions. Ms Mangan claimed the medical centre failed to provide her with reasonable accommodation considering her disabilities and also that she was harassed on several occasions because she could not wear a face mask due to suffering from anxiety, asthma, dermographism (a skin condition) and autism. The Saffron & Blue Medical Clinic disputed all the complaints and denied that it had discriminated against the patient. It also claimed she had not provided any credible evidence to support her claims that various medical conditions prevented her from wearing a mask and it did not accept she had a valid diagnosis of autism. A solicitor for the clinic had sought at the outset of a three-day hearing before the WRC to have her complaints dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous and vexatious. Ms Mangan gave evidence of various incidents when she attended the clinic for medical appointments without wearing a face mask. She claimed she was refused permission to wait in an internal waiting area and had to wait in her car, while on other occasions she claimed she was harassed by one of the GPs and a nurse for not wearing a mask. The Workplace Relations Commission and Labour Court offices in Dublin (Image: Philip Fitzpatrick/Collins) She told the WRC that the clinic's practice on mask wearing was not consistent as there were other times when she was seen by a GP when she was not wearing a mask. After being removed from the clinic's medical card panel, Ms Mangan said she was refused as a patient by five other GP practices on the basis they were not accepting medical card holders. She was subsequently assigned a new doctor under the HSE Change of Doctor procedure for medical card holders. Asked about the impact of being removed as a patient, Ms Mangan replied: "It is awful. I don't trust doctors anymore." The clinic's director, Dr Colum Gavin and two other doctors, Marie Quigney and Maeve Cahill, told the WRC hearing that they did not accept that the patient's various health conditions prevented her from wearing a mask. WRC adjudication officer, Moya de Paor, ruled that Ms Mangan had not been refused medical services within the terms of the legislation and did not suffer any discriminatory treatment over the failure to provide reasonable accommodation. However, Ms de Paor said the timeline of events supported the patient's claim that the clinic reacted to her complaint to the WRC by deciding to remove her from its medical card panel. She noted Dr Gavin had claimed that Ms Mangan had been removed from its medical card list because she had lost trust in the practice and not because she had issued legal proceedings against them. However, Ms de Paor remarked: "I do not accept his evidence as convincing or credible." She said there was a direct link between the complaint to the WRC and the decision to remove her as a patient from its medical card panel. Ms de Paor said she appreciated that the doctor/patient relationship was "fraught" during the Covid-19 pandemic and that some of the clinic's staff found it challenging. Nevertheless, she did not consider the manner in which the medical team approached the issue was reasonable as Ms Mangan was given no notification or warning about her removal and was not advised that she remained a patient of the practice until assigned another GP. In setting compensation, Ms de Paor said the breach was at "the more serious end of the scale" given Ms Mangan was a patient of the practice for over 30 years with a complex medical history. She said Ms Mangan was also in a more vulnerable position with less freedom to choose a GP as a medical card holder. Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest news from the Irish Mirror direct to your inbox: Sign up here.
Irish Times
26-06-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
WRC will hear blind man's discrimination claim against Re-Turn
Re-Turn Ireland has failed in an attempt to have a discrimination case brought by a blind man thrown out at the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC). The tribunal found it is 'very clear' that the bottle deposit return manager 'determines how the scheme will work' and that the complainant had made out an arguable case that the body is providing a service. The claimant, Pat McCarthy, has alleged he is disadvantaged by the scheme because he cannot read the markings indicating whether or not a drink container is included in the scheme. Deposit Return Scheme Ireland CLG, trading as Re-Turn Ireland, denies a statutory complaint by Mr McCarthy under the Equal Status Act 2000. READ MORE Its lawyers argued the WRC 'manifestly does not have jurisdiction' and called on the tribunal to dismiss the claim as 'misconceived' – an application which was rejected in a preliminary ruling published on Thursday. Mr McCarthy's case is that he went to an Aldi store at Carrigtwohill in Co Cork to return his drinks containers, but found himself unable to either locate a reverse vending machine, use the machine, or identify the Re-Turn logo on his bottles and cans. Mr McCarthy told the tribunal that he had been recycling his cans and bottles 'for decades' with little or no trouble, but that Re-Turn had 'treated him worse' because he is blind. 'The placing of Re-Turn logos or other marks and symbols in a way that blind people can't read is a policy that applies in the same way for everybody but disadvantages a group of people who share a protected characteristic,' he stated in a submission to the WRC. He said he was 'disadvantaged' by this due to his disability – pointing to a lack of accessible signage and a failure to use labels compatible with assistive technology for the visually impaired. Cliona Kimber SC, appearing for Deposit Return Scheme Ireland CLG instructed by Suzanne Keenan of Byrne Wallace Shields LLP, argued that Re-Turn was not providing a service to the public. It was 'simply acting as the government-approved body to manage the scheme' and did not 'order, own or operate the reverse vending machine' at Aldi Carrigtwohill, Ms Kimber submitted. 'The respondent applies for the dismissal of this complaint on the basis that the Workplace Relations Commission does not have jurisdiction to consider this complaint, as the complaint is misconceived,' Ms Kimber further submitted. Mr McCarthy argued that the scheme was run as an 'integrated' service under a 'partnership' between Aldi and Re-Turn, the WRC noted. In his preliminary decision, adjudication officer Brian Dalton wrote that it was 'very clear' that Deposit Return Scheme Ireland 'determine[s] how the scheme will work'. It 'prescribes a logo [and] a bar code and approves what reverse vending machines are to be used,' he wrote. Mr Dalton found that what set the case before him apart was the fact that the reverse vending machines were 'not limited to product purchased at that site or that retailer'. 'On the facts, I find that the complainant has made out an arguable case that [Deposit] Return Scheme Ireland [is] providing a service by prescribing how the scheme can be accessed,' he wrote. 'I find that the complaint is not misconceived, and will be set down for hearing of the substantive matter,' Mr Dalton concluded.
Irish Times
20-06-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
Supermarket cleared of discrimination in row over paying for groceries with 10c and 20c coins
A supermarket has been cleared of discriminating against two children who were asked by a cashier if they had 'anything larger' when they tried to pay for €68 worth of groceries with 10c and 20c coins. The children's father filed a complaint accusing the unidentified supermarket of a breach of the Equal Status Act 2000 by refusing service to the children on December 22nd, 2023, because they were members of the Travelling Community. The claim was ruled 'not well-founded' by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) in a decision published on Friday, which was anonymised because of the involvement of minors. The tribunal heard that at about 1.30pm on the day of the incident, a cashier scanned €68 worth of shopping through a checkout for a girl and boy whose father was outside the premises in a car. READ MORE The cashier's evidence was that she counted out €26.80 comprising €1 and €2 coins and 20c and 10c pieces. '[It] took some time to count,' she told the WRC at a remote hearing last month. When she asked the children for the rest of the sum due, the young girl produced a purse with 'a large amount of 10- and 20-cent coins inside', she told the WRC. The cashier then asked the children whether they had 'anything larger to pay with'. She explained that there was 'a large queue building up' at her till. The children said they did not and left to fetch their father, the cashier said. She said he asked her why she was not taking their money, and that she found him 'very confrontational'. She told the WRC she 'made it clear to him that she was not refusing to take his money' and had only asked for notes because it was 'a very busy day'. There were 'a lot more than 50 coins involved'. The supermarket owner came to the till and intervened, the tribunal heard. The owner gave evidence that the father showed her he had banknotes, but told her he 'wished to pay in full using coins'. The owner then proposed that the father could count out the exact amount owed in coins, or count it out in batches of €5-€10, she said. The father replied: 'You are refusing to accept our payment.' She said she was 'trying to find a solution' and even offered coin bags to count out the loose change, but the father 'turned and walked away and left the store mid-conversation'. The father gave evidence that the children told him at the car that they 'were not being served' and that he went in to find out why. He told the WRC he 'supported what [his wife] had said about the event' in presenting the claim. The family's position, as presented by the children's mother at last month's hearing, was that the children were 'refused service at the supermarket because they were members of the Travelling Community'. 'The children suffered embarrassment in the shop with locals present, and suffered embarrassment with their friends because of the incident.' The supermarket's solicitors, Sweeney McGann, submitted that the business offered an apology to the children's mother for the 'misunderstanding' in a bid to de-escalate the situation, as well as a voucher as a goodwill gesture, which was refused. Adjudicator Peter O'Brien wrote in a decision published on Friday that it was 'not prejudicial' for the cashier to ask the children if they had 'larger-value coins or notes to complete their purchases'. He noted that by law, 'no entity other than the Central Bank or such persons as ordered by the Minister [for Finance] shall be obliged to accept more than 50 coins denominated in euro or in cent in a single transaction'. He noted that the only person who had given direct evidence to him about the initial incident was the cashier, as anything the children had told their parents was 'hearsay'. The cashier's evidence was that she 'never refused to complete the purchase' but simply asked the children whether there was 'a more convenient way to pay', he wrote. 'The request to pay with larger-value notes or coins could easily have applied to a minor who was not a member of the Travelling Community or indeed any adult who presented with large amounts of small coinage on such a busy day,' he wrote. He concluded the cashier's actions were reasonable and that she 'did not engage in discriminatory or prohibited conduct', and dismissed the complaint.
Irish Times
16-06-2025
- Health
- Irish Times
St James's Hospital apologises to trans woman over treatment at emergency department
St James's Hospital has made a public apology to a trans woman over her experience at its emergency department last year after she fell ill following gender reassignment surgery overseas. In a public statement made to Paige Behan before the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), the hospital acknowledged there is a 'lacuna in the care pathways' for people in her position. Its management has apologised for the 'unsatisfactory and upsetting' experience she faced and undertook to meet with a trans advocacy group to discuss its concerns. Ms Behan brought a statutory complaint against the hospital's board alleging that she was discriminated against in breach of the Equal Status Act 2000 when she came in seeking emergency treatment on August 16th, 2024. Her complaint has now been resolved by agreement. READ MORE The case opened before adjudication officer David James Murphy on Monday afternoon, following a short adjournment for talks between the parties. Ms Behan's barrister, Michael Kinsley BL, appearing instructed by solicitor Seamus Hempenstall of Daly Hempenstall LLP said: 'The matter has been resolved and the only action required is that a public statement be read out by the hospital.' The statement was then read out by counsel for the board of St James's Hospital, Mairead McKenna. 'St James's Hospital acknowledges there is a lacuna in the care pathways available for patients who have received gender-affirming surgery abroad,' Ms McKenna said. '[The hospital] apologises to Paige Behan for the unsatisfactory and upsetting experience she had during her attendance at the emergency department on 16 August 2024. The hospital deeply regrets the upset caused to Ms Behan,' Ms McKenna said. 'St James's Hospital is committed to learning from Paige Behan's experience at the hospital and has agreed to meet with Transgender Equality Network Ireland (TENI) at Paige Behan's request to discuss the concerns regarding the care available to patients who are returning from abroad following gender-affirming surgery.' The adjudicator, Mr Murphy noted the withdrawal of the equal status complaint pursuant to an agreement between the parties. He praised the 'hard work' of the litigants in coming to the agreement, and commended their commitment to 'improving the service to everyone's benefit' before closing the hearing.
RTÉ News
13-06-2025
- RTÉ News
Airline to pay autistic man after denying exit row seat
An airline has been ordered to pay a passenger €7,500 for refusing to let him sit in an exit row seat he had booked specially for extra legroom because he had disclosed that he was autistic. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) made the award after upholding a complaint of disability discrimination and harassment in breach of the Equal Status Act brought against the airline in an anonymised decision. The tribunal heard the difficulty arose when the man arrived to check in for a return flight to Dublin from London in March 2024. The claimant, whom the tribunal noted was "autistic and uses a sleep apnoea machine" had written to the airline requesting special assistance before he left. In the letter, he referred specifically to difficulties with queuing and requiring space for the sleep apnoea machine, the tribunal heard. "All went well on the first leg," he told the tribunal, and he flew in seat 12A, which he had pre-booked. When he went to check in his baggage for his return flight on 18 March that year, he was told he had been moved out of the emergency exit row seat he had booked "due to his disability", he said. His evidence was that he produced his medical certification and asked to have the matter "resolved quickly and discreetly" so that he "would not have to keep explaining his disability in the presence of other passengers". The man added that he was told to speak to the cabin crew. He was first to the boarding gate and spoke to a worker there who "did not understand his difficulty", the man said. By the time she had called over a colleague, he said, the gate was full of passengers and a queue was forming behind him. He "again told the entire story". The second worker told him that "as a result of being autistic they would not let him sit at the emergency exit", he said. The claimant said it was "humiliating and degrading" to have to discuss his diagnosis "in front of a large crowd of onlookers" who "all could hear what was happening". Having explained that his disability did not amount to any "cognitive or physical impairment" that would impair his ability to aid in an evacuation of the plane in an emergency, he was again told to speak with the cabin crew. When the time came to board, he was put in the second row and said he sat with his legs "pinned up against the seats in front of him" and was "unable to move". After asking twice to speak to a member of the cabin crew, one came and told him he could not sit in the emergency exit row "because of his disability". He remained in that seat for the rest of the flight, which he called a "distressing, humiliating and degrading" experience. The passenger's position was that being required to repeatedly refer to his diagnosis in public because of the "persistent" questions of airline staff amounted to harassment. In its defence of the claim, the airline's lawyers, Arthur Cox LLP, relied on safety regulations governing "special categories of passengers". The rules covered people requiring "special conditions, assistance and/or devices when carried on a flight" and barred such passengers from being seated in seats which "permit direct access to emergency exits", the tribunal was told. As the claimant had registered himself as a person with a disability, he therefore fell under the remit of those regulations, the airline's lawyers submitted. "It is an unreasonable onus on cabin crew to make an assessment on the type of disability a passenger has, or where on a spectrum a person with a disability falls, on a case-by-case basis," the airline's lawyers submitted. 'A shambles' Adjudication officer Pat Brady wrote in his decision: "A full reading of the regulations makes it clear the critical criterion is that of mobility, and its impact on safety in an emergency." The regulations went to "some trouble" to set out definitions and categories of disability, and to define the reasons for imposing seating restrictions, Mr Brady wrote. "[The regulations] do not provide a , unless the nature of that person's disability or lack of mobility pose a reasonable impediment to the safe evacuation of the aircraft," Mr Brady wrote. He added that it was "not an unreasonable burden" for the airline to assess this at the point when the passenger applies to be treated as part of the special category of passengers. Mr Brady wrote that what happened at the boarding gate could only be described as "a shambles". He concluded that the passenger had been discriminated against in breach of the Equal Status Act by being denied reasonable accommodation for his disability as well as suffering harassment. Mr Brady directed the airline to pay the claimant €7,500 for discriminatory treatment. He also ordered the airline to establish procedures for ascertaining the "capacity and mobility" of any passenger seeking the special category status according to the regulations "before declining a booking in any part of an aircraft".
