WRC Case Highlights Importance of Timely Apology in Discrimination Claims

In this article, Daniel McLoughlin, Partner and Sarah Biggin, Trainee Solicitor review the successful Defence by Comyn Kelleher Tobin in a claim brought in the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) in which it was held that a mistake which was promptly corrected with an apology did not constitute discrimination under the Equal Status Acts.

On 29 September 2025, the WRC issued a decision in the case of Nadine Lattimore v NM Palmerston Retail Investments Ltd t/a Centra Parnell Street. Ms Lattimore, who is registered blind, brought a claim against the Respondent alleging discrimination under the Equal Status Act, 2000, specifically on the grounds of disability and a failure to provide reasonable accommodation.

Background

On 18 December 2024 Ms Lattimore entered Centra Parnell Street with her Guide Dog and was initially told by a staff member that dogs were not allowed.

Ms. Lattimore claimed that the interaction constituted discrimination and a refusal of access. She subsequently filed a complaint with the WRC asserting that her rights as a disabled person had been violated. She submitted audio recordings and CCTV footage to support her claim and argued that the store failed to properly train staff to recognise Guide Dogs.

Respondent’s Position

The Respondent denied that it had discriminated against Ms Lattimore, submitting that whilst the staff member in question did not immediately recognise that the Complainant’s dog was a Guide Dog, he immediately rectified the matter when he did notice it was a Guide Dog. The Complainant was then told that Guide Dogs were welcome in store. It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that a brief once off failure to identify a dog as a Guide Dog is not a breach of the Act and a service provider is entitled to correct a mistake.

The Respondent emphasised that Ms Lattimore was initially stopped but was never refused entry. The incident was brief, lasting approximately 15 seconds, and apologies were issued promptly. It was noted that the store maintains a “no dogs” policy since 2006 due to safety and hygiene concerns, but explicitly exempts working dogs such as Guide Dogs.

Legal Framework

The issue for the Adjudication Officer was to determine whether the Respondent failed to provide reasonable accommodation and discriminated against the Complainant on the grounds of disability as provided for in Section 3(2) of the Equal Status Acts. In order to succeed in her claim, the Complainant needed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, shifting the onus to the Respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination raised. The Adjudication Officer noted that the Labour Court has consistently held that the facts from which the occurrence of discrimination may be inferred must be of ‘sufficient significance’ before a prima facie case is established and the burden of proof shifts to the Respondent.

Findings

The Adjudication Officer found that:

• The Complainant was asked by an employee not to enter the store with her guide dog.
• The Respondent acknowledged that the employee made a mistake in not immediately identifying the Complainant’s dog as a working dog.
• The error, however, was corrected within seconds, and apologies were offered by the staff member in question and the shop owner.
• Mistakes may occur in practice. To interpret this brief incident over a 15 second time frame as constituting discrimination requires a degree of inference he did not consider to be supported by the evidence.

The Adjudication Officer concluded that the Complainant did not establish a prima facie case upon which discrimination could be inferred based on the disability ground and on that basis, the complaint was not upheld.

Implications

This decision highlights that in certain circumstances mistakes, when promptly corrected, do not constitute discrimination under the Equal Status Acts. Mistakes may occur in practice but discrimination must be of ‘sufficient significance’ before a prima facie case is established.

The decision also highlights the importance of staff training and clear policies in public retail spaces, especially regarding access and disability rights.

Read the full Workplace Relations Commission decision here.