On 29 June 2023, the Workplace Relations Commission (‘WRC’) concluded that Griffith College’s outright refusal to provide any accommodations for a deaf prospective law student constituted discrimination contrary to section 4 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 (as amended) (the ‘Equal Status Act’). WRC Adjudications Officer Kevin Baneham found that Griffith College had wrongly relied upon a strict policy that negated its statutory obligation to evaluate a prospective service user’s need, had unjustifiably “made assumptions” about the level of student Sofiya Kalinova’s need, and had failed to make full and proper enquiries as to the costs of providing Kalinova with suitable accommodations. The WRC awarded Kalinova €3,000 on foot of the decision, and ordered Griffith College to bring its Academic Learner Support Policy in line with the provisions of the Equal Status Act.
Over the course of two days in 2022, the WRC heard how Kalinova had asked Griffith College whether it could provide accommodations “such as ISL interpretation and a notetaker” to enable her to participate in the 10-week preparatory course for the King’s Inns entrance exams. Kalinova had decided that she wished to join the course a number of weeks after it had commenced, and made the accommodations enquiry at that point. The request was met with what Kalinova described as “a blunt no” from Griffith College – who later informed her that Clause 6.2.2 of its Academic Learner Support Policy provided that “where a learner who is deaf has the requirement of Irish Sign Language (ISL) interpreter, the cost of this will be borne by the learner”. The WRC considered section 4 of the Equal Status Act in detail, noting that “at the core of section 4 is the requirement to evaluate a person’s needs to see if those needs can be accommodated”. Griffith College’s reliance on a fixed policy such as Clause 6.2.2 was found to have had the effect of prohibiting the provision of certain accommodations regardless of the evaluation of need – and was thus held to have been in contravention of section 4.
The WRC further ruled that Griffith College had wrongly assumed that Kalinova was specifically seeking an interpreter and a notetaker for the full 10 weeks of the course, and had therefore not fulfilled its statutory obligation to gain a “clear understanding” of her need. The Adjudication Officer contrasted this situation with the approach taken by another college, who could not provide an interpreter or notetaker but who did meet with Kalinova to gain a full appreciation of her position and who then provided her with course materials. The WRC did make clear, however, that a meeting would not always be necessary for a service provider to gain a clear understanding of a service user’s need.
The WRC also found flaws with Griffith College’s costing of the provision of accommodations to Kalinova, noting that this costing was “predicated on her doing the whole course and priced from only one provider”. This particular finding by the WRC weakened one of the submissions put forth by Griffith College, that being its contention that it – a private college without access the Fund for Students with Disabilities – could not provide the accommodations at no more than a nominal cost.
The parties to this dispute have 42 days from the date of the Adjudication Officer’s decision to lodge an appeal with the Labour Court.
Click here for the judgment in Sofiya Kalinova v Bellerophon Ltd Trading as Griffith College (Workplace Relations Commission, Adjudication Reference ADJ-00031408, 29 June 2023).