Latest news with #EqualStatusAct2000
RTÉ News
20-06-2025
- Business
- RTÉ News
Shop cleared of discrimination over €68 payment in 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 accusing the unidentified supermarket of a breach of the Equal Status Act 2000 by refusing service to the children on 22 December 2023 because they were members of the Traveller Community. The claim was ruled "not well founded" by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) in a decision published today (FRI), which was anonymised because of the involvement of minors. The tribunal heard that at around 1.30pm on the day of the incident, a cashier had scanned €68 worth of shopping through a checkout for the girl and boy, whose father was outside the premises in a car. 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 that 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 of the children 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 of the children "turned and walked away and left the store mid-conversation". The children's father gave evidence that they 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 today 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 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.
RTÉ News
16-06-2025
- Health
- RTÉ News
St James's Hospital apologises to trans woman
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 before the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) this afternoon, 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. The patient, Paige 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 16 August last year. Her complaint has now been resolved by agreement. The case opened before adjudication officer David James Murphy this 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 SC, who was instructed by Arthur Cox in the matter. "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 continued. "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," she concluded. 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
27-05-2025
- RTÉ News
Student awarded €9,000 as school's ear piercing policy found to be discriminatory
A 16-year-old Transition Year student has won €9,000 in compensation for gender-based discrimination and victimisation after he was punished for wearing an ear piercing to school at the start of term last year. The Workplace Relations Commission has ruled that his school's uniform policy was indirectly discriminatory on gender grounds, favouring female students over males by requiring ear piercings to be worn in pairs - and has ordered the rule changed. The decision on the boy's claim against the school under the Equal Status Act 2000 was published this morning by the tribunal in anonymised form. The school had denied his claim. The student, who is in Transition Year, arrived to school at the start of the new term on 30 August 2024 with the upper cartilage of his left ear newly pierced and a round silver stud through it, the tribunal heard at hearings in November and December 2024. The school considered it to be in breach of the uniform rules in its code of behaviour, which forbids "all body piercings except one small stud in each ear", the tribunal heard. "I think their intention is that boys don't wear studs… I think they know boys won't pierce the other ear because they'll be called gay, they'll be called names. They won't go through the hassle of it, and they'll take it out," the claimant told the Workplace Relations Commission at a hearing December last. Asked why he chose to wear the ear stud, the young man said: "It's my grandad - it's a sense of my personality, following in the footsteps." The student's solicitor, Gerard Cullen, said his client was presented with choices to either "remove the stud or pierce the other ear" or complete the three-week healing process with a plaster covering the piercing. He called that "interference with bodily integrity". Counsel for the school Kevin Roche BL, appearing instructed by Mason Hayes and Curran, said that after the young man instructed a solicitor in the matter, he had been sent a legal letter to say he would be considered to be "in compliance" if he "covered the ear with plaster". He said that had already been offered to the young man, and rejected. The boy's grandmother told the tribunal her husband and all of her sons had worn piercings in their left ears, and that she considered this the usual practice for a man to wear one. "I suppose it's a bit like a woman wearing a wedding ring on her left hand," she said. "If they don't like studs, ban them all. [Boys] are going to be called a sissy, and it's not fair," she said. A row broke out at a meeting between the boy and his family and the principal and deputy principal on 4 September 2024, when the claimant's mother and grandmother came to the school, the tribunal heard. The complainant's case is that in the weeks that followed he was subject to sanctions, including being placed sitting outside the principal's office, being denied leave to go down to the town on his lunch break, and being assigned to evening detention which would have meant missing his bus home. The school's position is that it followed its disciplinary code at all times and sought to de-escalate the matter - with its barrister telling the tribunal that the first mention of legal action was on the part the complainant's solicitor. In his decision, adjudicator Brian Dalton wrote that the "apparently neutral" rule on ear studs was discriminatory on the grounds of gender. He added that since the claimant had complained about that rule being unfair, it followed that the sanctions "solely arose because of [his] objection to an unfair practice" and amounted to victimisation. As well as the "heated exchange" in the principal's office, the young man had been subject to sanctions "disproportionate to the alleged rule breached". Mr Dalton concluded they amounted to victimisation and harassment. These included being left sitting outside the principal's office, detention, and restrictions on leaving the school at lunchtime. "This treatment solely arose because the student complained against the rule that I have determined to be discriminatory, as it favours females over males," he wrote. Mr Dalton ordered the school to amend its rule on body piercings "so that it facilitates the wearing of one or two earrings". He directed the school to pay €9,000 in compensation to the young man. Mr Dalton directed that the sum be paid to the claimant's mother and "be held by her comparable to a trust until he reaches the age of 18, and prior to that date to be used for his education as she sees fit".
RTÉ News
16-05-2025
- RTÉ News
Disabled motorist loses discrimination claim over delay at toll bridge
A disabled driver who made a statutory complaint over being held up for less than two minutes when a toll bridge camera misread his car's number plate has lost his discrimination claim. The Workplace Relations Commission has rejected a claim under the Equal Status Act 2000 against North Link M1 Ltd, the operator of the tolled section of the M1 motorway in counties Meath and Louth. The claimant, David Tyrell, is a beneficiary of the Disability Toll Exemption Scheme (DTES), which allows adapted vehicles for disabled drivers use toll roads for free, the WRC heard last month. On 2 October 2024, Mr Tyrell arrived to a toll plaza on the M1 motorway in his car and proceeded into an unmanned lane. His car's registration "appeared on the screen", but the barrier did not open, he said in evidence to the WRC. When he pressed a call button to get help, a control room operator asked him for the registration number "even though she should have been able to read [it] on the screen", he told the tribunal. The operator told him the number he gave was incorrect, but then proceeded to read out the correct number for his car," he said. His evidence was that he told the worker: "If you know my number, why are you asking for it?" Her response was: "Don't be so smart, and you shouldn't be in this lane anyway," he said. He went on his way when the barrier was lifted, the WRC heard. The control room operator on the day, Louise McMullen, said she greeted Mr Tyrell as normal and asked him if he had paid because she "did not know he was exempt". Her evidence was that she could only see the registration number on a screen rather than "a visual of any car" and could not see his DTES disc. When the issue arose, she "realised there had to be a digit missing" from the registration number captured on the system, and that was why she asked him to call out the number and proceeded to search the plate number on the Motor Tax system. Ms McMullen said this took a minute to do. In all, Mr Tyrell and his passenger waited "1.47 minutes" at the barrier before it was lifted, the tribunal heard. She said Mr Tyrell "seemed annoyed" with her, but denied telling him: "Don't be smart." She said her supervisor was right beside her and she would "never say such a thing anyway". She acknowledged that she did tell him: "If you use the operator lanes in the future, it'll be quicker." Mr Tyrell's position was that he "should be allowed to use unmanned toll lanes just as non-disabled drivers do". He also contended that he should not have had to speak with the worker about his status as a beneficiary of the toll exemption scheme as it meant disclosing his disability to his passenger, he said. He added that the way the worker spoke to him, treated him and delayed him were also discriminatory. Sinead Morgan of DAC Beachcroft, appearing for the toll operator, submitted that the DTES guidelines advised pass-holders to use a manned lane so that if a registration plat was misread by the system, "a staff member can quickly see a DTES disc and lift the barrier without any questions being asked". Mr Tyrell accepted under cross-examination that he had not read the DTES guidelines. Adjudicator Emile Daly accepted Mr Tyrell "did not know all this" in regard to how the system worked and that that he believed discrimination was at play when he took his claim. "Had he read the DTES guidelines, he would have learned that using a manned toll lane was for his benefit, not to his detriment," she added. She wrote that she was satisfied "no prohibited conduct took place" and rejected Mr Tyrell's Equal Status Act complaint.
