Latest news with #EqualStatusAct2000
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.
