In January 2020, a deaf Complainant submitted a complaint of discrimination on the grounds of disability and sought redress under section 21 of the Equal Status Act 2000 (as amended) from the Respondent Bank, Permanent TSB. She alleged the Respondent bank had failed to provide her with reasonable accommodation when she tried to avail of its services. As a result of the Respondent’s blanket policy, the Complainant was treated differently and placed in a “vulnerable” category which she submitted was an affront to her dignity.

Summary of Complaint

The Complainant is deaf. At the hearing, she communicated her evidence and underwent cross-examination through the assistance of an Irish Sign Language (‘ISL’) Interpreter provided by the WRC. Evidence was also given on behalf of the Irish Sign Language Interpreting Services outlining some of challenges experienced by deaf customers accessing services. They gave evidence of the extensive training undertaken by ISL interpreters, and explained that that their role is to accurately convey the conversation between the deaf person and the service provider.

The Complainant held a bank account with the Respondent Bank. The Complainant ran into difficulties with her password when she tried to access her online banking app. She needed to contact an Agent in the Bank to resolve the matter. The Complainant booked a slot with an Interpreter to allow for communication with the Respondent. The Respondent then refused to speak with the account holder through a third party, classifying the Complainant as a “vulnerable” customer.

The Complainant wrote an email of complaint. On 21 August 2019, the Respondent replied stating that Online Banking Service Agents do not communicate through third parties regarding customer accounts. The Complainant was advised to come into the Branch with valid Photo I.D. The Respondent further stated that the matter had been brought to the attention of management and amendments would be made to the procedures in place. Following on from this response, in October 2019, the Complainant attempted to repeat the process of contacting an Agent in the Respondent Bank but this again failed. The Complainant subsequently raised the issue through an ES1 pre-litigation notification Form and was not satisfied by the response she received.

At the hearing the Respondent gave evidence of previous fraud attempts, whereby third parties had gained access to personal data. As a result, the bank policy was that it would not communicate with third parties. The Respondent had made efforts to engage with the Irish Sign Language Interpreting Services and with different departments in the Bank since October 2019. The Adjudication Officer observed that the Respondent’s main concern appeared to be fraud prevention rather than data protection. In approaching the issues raised by the Complainant, the Respondent bank determined that an appropriate, security-conscious consent form needed to be created and signed off on. Stakeholders were consulted in an effort to find ways of making reasonable accommodations whilst also mitigating risk.

Duty to provide Reasonable Accommodation

The Complainant claimed that the Respondent Bank failed to provide her with reasonable accommodations when she attempted to avail of their services. The Respondent rejected this argument making the case that reasonable accommodation had been offered in circumstances where she had been invited to present at the branch with valid I.D.

The Complainant further noted that even in circumstances where she may have found the time to attend the Branch, the issue of an ISL Interpreter would still arise. The only way the Complainant could communicate was through an Interpreter. Evidence was submitted by the Complainant that another Bank having first asked a few security questions then gave her access in the manner sought. In the present case, no security questions were asked.

Indirect Discrimination

She relied successfully on the case John Maughan v The Glimmer Man Ltd (S2001-020) where a guide dog was used by visually impaired person to avail of a service. The Complainant explained that the ISL Interpreter is an essential aid for a deaf person accessing services in the same way that a guide dog is for a blind person. The failure of the Respondent to take this on board amounted to indirect discrimination on the grounds of disability.

Decision

The Adjudication Officer held that there is a legal obligation on the service provider bank to provide reasonable accommodation in certain circumstances. In particular, the Equal Status Act recognises that a person with a disability may need “special treatment or facilities” to avail of a service. The Adjudication Officer noted that, at the very least, the appointment of an employee with liaison status with whom the Complainant was at liberty to communicate directly would have allowed the Complainant to have direct email contact so as to conduct her business.

The Adjudication Officer found that the Complainant had been greatly inconvenienced and categorised as being vulnerable. The Respondent failed in its obligation to provide reasonable accommodation. As a result, the Complainant was discriminated against of the grounds of disability. The complainant was awarded compensation of €8,500.00.

This case illustrates the importance of the legal obligation to provide reasonable accommodation to accommodate all deaf people in accessing goods and services. Irish Sign Language is recognised as an official language of the State and there is an obligation on public bodies to provide free interpretation so as to counteract the potential exclusion and marginalisation sometimes experienced by persons who are deaf. It was only when the Complainant submitted a complaint to the service provider, in relation to the lack of accommodation provided to deaf people, that the Respondent began to make meaningful efforts to engage Irish Sign Language Interpreting Services.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2022/june/adj-00026607.html