Jehovah's Witness not discriminated against being asked to accompany residents to mass

Gordon Deegan

A Jehovah’s Witness has lost a claim that she suffered discrimination on religious grounds by being asked to accompany residents of an intellectual disability service to Mass.

This follows the Labour Court dismissing the discrimination claim that the HSE had breached the Employment Equality Act over its treatment of multitasking healthcare assistant, Judyta Zielinska, while she was working with Wexford Residential Intellectual Disabilities Services.

On behalf of the three-person Labour Court, deputy chairwoman, Katie Connolly found that Ms Zielinska had not presented sufficient facts to show that indirect, direct discrimination of victimisation had taken place.

The ruling by the Labour Court upholds a finding by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) in 2024 that the HSE did not discriminate against Ms Zielinska concerning her accompanying residents to Mass.

In her claim, Ms Zileinska - who arrived in Ireland from Poland in 2005 - stated that she informed her employer from the outset of her employment in 2015 that she was raised in a Jehovah’s Witness family and did not participate in any religious observances not in line with her religious faith.

Ms Zielinska worked in various care facilities over a period of eight years, and she always discussed her religious beliefs and background at staff support meetings and was always assured that her religious background was respected.

Ms Zielinska was never under any obligation to attend mass against her beliefs, and in or about 2023, several demands were made to her to attend mass with residents.

Ms Zielinska was extremely stressed about the entire situation, and due to her religious beliefs, she suffered discrimination at her workplace, which has resulted in severe stress and anxiety.

Ms Zielinska suffered direct discrimination as she was treated less favourably than her colleagues in the same working conditions when asked to attend mass against her religious beliefs.

The HSE denied discrimination and told the Labour Court that Ms Zielinska was not required to participate in mass but was merely asked to accompany residents to mass, in accordance with her job specification.

It stated that furthermore the employer minimised these requests wherever possible in the past with the result that Ms Zilinska has not previously had to bring a resident to mass.

The HSE contended that Ms Zielinska has not established a prima facie case of discrimination in respect of less favourable treatment owing to the fact that she was merely requested to attend mass with residents.

Ms Zielinska lodged her discrimination claim to the WRC on January 2nd 2024 so the relevant period concerning the alleged discrimination ran from July 3rd 2023 to January 2nd 2024.

Ms Connolly records that Ms Zielinska has been absent from work since July 7th 2023, on sick leave.

In the Labour Court’s findings, Ms Connolly stated that the court found Ms Zielinska to be a genuine witness who gave compelling evidence about her anxiety in relation to the possibility of being requested to attend religious services contrary to her faith.

However, Ms Connolly pointed out that having a characteristic protected under the Act is not sufficient to ground a claim of direct discrimination.

Ms Connolly stated that in this case, Ms Zielinska did not support any residents attend mass during the relevant period for the complaint.

Ms Connolly stated that the discriminatory action complained of by Ms Zielinska was a request to assist residents attending mass.

Ms Connolly stated that Ms Zielinska presented no evidence to support her assertion that she was subject to less favourable treatment because of her religious beliefs than another person was or would be treated in a comparable situation in the relevant period for the complaint.

Ms Connolly found that has not demonstrated how she was treated differently, or how she suffered any detriment due to her religious beliefs, nor has she made out a case of how a request to support residents in attending mass constitutes adverse ‘treatment’ in relation to a comparator.

Ms Connolly also stated that the Court finds Ms Zielinska was not subject to any adverse action, nor was she threatened with any adverse action by her employer.

Ms Connolly stated that the court finds that Ms Zielinska has failed to make out a prima facie case in relation to her complaint of direct discrimination.

Ms Connolly also stated that the court found that no evidence was provided to support the assertion that Ms Zielinska was victimised for making a complaint of discrimination on a protected ground or exercising a right under the Act to ground her complaint of victimisation

Ms Connolly found that the facts presented by Ms Zielinska at the hearing are insufficient to show that, on the balance of probabilities, she was subjected to indirect discrimination on the grounds of her religion in the relevant period for her complaint.