The complainant worked with the respondent for 30 years as a painter.  He was profoundly deaf.  Following the introduction of a new Health and Safety Statement an issue arose around the complainant’s SafePass.  A refresher course was organised by another employer and the complainant, along with colleagues, was to attend.  The complainant was led to believe that a sign language interpreter would be available to assist him as at previous courses.  The Advocacy Manager of the Irish Deaf Society stated that the complainant’s ability to understand the Safe Pass Course would have been limited without the benefit of a sign language interpreter.

However, due to what was found to be “unwarranted interference and meddling” by a representative of the interpreter providers no sign language interpreter was ultimately on hand on the day.  (In paragraph 5.19 the Equality Officer details the impact of this interference.)  The complainant did not stay at the training.  The respondent communicated with the complainant by text one of which said he (the employer) was sorry the complainant was leaving his employment.

The complainant had omitted to indicate on his complaint form that he wished to pursue a claim of discriminatory dismissal and the Equality Officer after consideration found that the dismissal aspect of the claim was validly before her.

Fás had agreed to pay for one interpreter and the fact that one was not available on the day appears to have been the result of interactions between the interpretation provider (the meddling mentioned above) and the employer who organised the training.  The complainant’s employer does not appear to have been directly responsible for it.

The Equality Officer found that offering the same opportunities and facilities to the complainant as was offered to the other employees who did not have a disability constitutes discriminatory treatment.  The respondent asserted that he did not intend to dismiss the complainant and while that may have been the case the Equality Officer was satisfied that the wording of the messages sent a strong message that if the complainant did not attend the course he was dismissed and found the complainant had established a prima facie case of dismissal on the disability ground which the respondent had failed to rebut.

The complainant’s claims were upheld and he was awarded €12,000 from a possible €45,000, approximately 6 months wages after 30 years employment.

Why this case is of interest

• Applying different treatment to people who are in the same (or similar) circumstances or applying the same treatment to people who are in different circumstances can give rise to a prima facie case of discrimination

Sadly, the situation in this case seems to have been entirely avoidable particularly given that Fás had agreed to foot the expense of one interpreter.  However, what is of note is that the responsibility lies with the respondent to provide the accommodations that are necessary and appropriate.