Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Waleed Maza v Absolute Hotel Limerick Limited [2024]
Waleed Maza v Absolute Hotel Limerick Limited [2024]
Published on: 08/07/2024
Issues Covered: Dismissal Discrimination
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Patrick Barrett BL Barrister-at-Law
Patrick Barrett BL Barrister-at-Law

The Bar of Ireland

Orchard Way, Killarney V93Y9W9.
DX: 51010 Killarney 
Tel: (087) 4361270

Patrick's legal education is robust, beginning with a BCL Law Degree from University College Cork (2012-2016), followed by an LL.M in Business Law from the same institution (2016-2017), and culminating in a Barrister-at-Law Degree from The Honorable Society of King’s Inns in Dublin (2019-2021). He has extensive experience on the South-West Circuit, handling Civil, Family, and Criminal Law cases, as well as advising the Citizen Advice Service.  He has worked as an employment consultant, dealing with workplace investigations and bankruptcy procedures.

Background

Summary Sentence:
Adjudication Officer concluded no discrimination occurred.

Background:
The Complainant, a Night Duty Manager at Absolute Hotel from July 2022 to January 2023, oversaw hotel operations and guest issues. He argued that poor communication led to his disciplinary hearing and termination after mistakenly entering a hotel room booked by a colleague. However, the Complainant suspected his dismissal was influenced by management’s “surprise” at his religious prohibition against serving alcohol, which was not discussed during his interview. The Complainant believed management targeted him due to his religious beliefs and his pursuit of education, relying on inadequate religious accommodations and lack of proper notification about the room’s status.  The Respondent refuted the Complainant’s unfair dismissal and discrimination claims, asserting they were already addressed by the Labour Court (LCR22823) and lack merit. They stated the Complainant was terminated for misconduct, including entering a guest room without permission and denied any discriminatory actions based on race or religion, emphasising the Complainant never raised such issues during investigations or appeals. The Respondent asserts a fair disciplinary process, highlighting previous attempts to accommodate the Complainant’s religious beliefs regarding alcohol handling. Further, stated the Complainant admitted to the misconduct and only later alleged discrimination.

Finding:
The Adjudicator held that Section 6(1) of the Employment Equality Acts stipulates that discrimination occurs when an individual is treated less favourably than another in a comparable situation based on grounds specified in section 6(2). These grounds include race (section 6(2)(h): race, colour, nationality, or ethnic/national origins) and religion (section 6(2)(e): differing religious beliefs or lack thereof). Section 8 prohibits employers and agency work providers from discriminating against employees or prospective employees in areas such as access to employment, employment conditions, training, promotion, and post classification. Specific discriminatory actions include denying equal terms of employment, working conditions, and treatment related to overtime, transfers, layoffs, redundancies, dismissals, and disciplinary measures based on discriminatory grounds. The Adjudicator noted that under section 85A, the initial burden of proof in discrimination claims lies with the complainant, who must establish facts that suggest discrimination. If a prima facie case is established, the burden shifts to the respondent to disprove the claim. The facts must be significant and credible, not based on mere speculation or assertions, as emphasised in the Melbury v. Valpeters and Cork City Council v. McCarthy cases. Further, section 28 outlines comparators, indicating that the complainant and another individual should differ in religious beliefs or race for comparison. Section 77 sets a six-month time limit for lodging discrimination claims, extendable to twelve months for reasonable cause. This limit can extend if misrepresentation by the respondent delayed the complaint.

The Adjudicator held there a lack of credible evidence supporting the claims. Despite initial allegations, the Complainant failed to provide specific facts or identify a comparator treated more favourably. The dismissal followed a disciplinary process unrelated to race or religion, thus failing to meet the burden of proof for discrimination.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

Employers should ensure clear communication and thorough documentation throughout the hiring and employment process to avoid misunderstandings. Specifically:

  • Detailed Job Descriptions: Clearly outline job duties during the interview process to prevent conflicts.
  • Religious Accommodations: Proactively discuss and document any needed religious accommodations, ensuring they are feasible and mutually agreed upon.
  • Consistent Disciplinary Procedures: Follow a fair and consistent disciplinary process, documenting all actions and ensuring employees are aware of and agree to policies.
  • Training on Diversity and Inclusion: Provide regular training for management and staff on respecting and accommodating diverse religious and cultural practices.
  • Open Communication Channels: Encourage employees to voice concerns about potential discrimination promptly, ensuring issues are addressed swiftly and appropriately.

The full case can be found here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2024/june/adj-00045512.html

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 08/07/2024
Q&A
Legal Island’s LMS, licensed to you Imagine your staff having 24/7 access to a centralised training platform, tailored to your organisation’s brand and staff training needs, with unlimited users. Learn more →