A youth group committee discriminated against a transgender volunteer when it voted to exclude him from working with younger children because of his gender identity, a tribunal has found.
In an anonymised decision published on Thursday, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has directed the unidentified organisation to pay the volunteer €5,000 in compensation for a breach of the Equal Status Act 2000.
The volunteer, identified only as Mr E, told an equality hearing in Dublin earlier this year that he had lived as a male for more than a decade after transitioning and that his identity was something only “family and close friends” were aware of.
He told the WRC he spent about 18 months as a leader with the organisation before he found out in the spring of 2024 that his gender identity had caused controversy at a committee meeting when he first applied to volunteer in late 2022.
READ MORE
A witness who was at the meeting, Ms G, said another leader, Mr D, had been privy to the complainant’s trans identity and disclosed it “inadvertently” when Mr E’s application to become a leader was being considered by the group council.
Two other leaders on the group council objected to the complainant being assigned to any younger group on the basis that “parents might remove their children from the organisation if they learned that a person of transgender identity was the leader for their kids”, Ms G told the tribunal.
Mr D immediately said he had made a mistake by making the disclosure and said his position was that Mr E should be “permitted to volunteer with any age group” regardless of his trans identity.
The chairperson proceeded to call a vote on whether or not to accept the complainant’s application on condition that Mr E “not be allowed to lead younger groups due to his transgender identity”, the witness said.
The vote resulted in the complainant being excluded from volunteering with younger groups.
Ms G had been giving evidence after being called by the complainant in support of his case. She said she abstained from the vote and told the committee their discussion was “discriminatory”. She later quit the organisation.
Mr E proceeded to file a complaint with the organisation’s safeguarding unit and said he was asked not to attend group meetings until after it had concluded, he said.
The respondent organisation told the WRC that its internal inquiry into the matter concluded that Mr E was discriminated against when decisions about his role in the organisation were made “solely based on his gender identity”.
It found further that that sensitive information was “shared inappropriately”, but did not find “evidence of a discriminatory culture in the group”, the WRC was told.
Mr E claimed he was told not to come back to group meetings upon raising a complaint. The organisation said Mr E had first “chosen to take a step back” when he learned of the committee discussion.
Later, there had been a “verbal altercation” between Mr E and Mr C, the chairman, it was submitted. After which Mr C claimed Mr E had “shouted and sworn” at him in a public place, and only then was Mr E asked not to attend meetings, the organisation submitted.
The organisation said Mr E had refused to engage in mediation and that while it had taken steps to provide training for leaders on equality and diversity, it could not “force” volunteers to attend in their free time.
It added that it had been subject to “complaints and backlash” after publishing information on its website regarding transgender issues.
Mr E admitted swearing at Mr C and agreed it had been “unacceptable”. He said it was “borne out of pure frustration with what was happening”.
WRC adjudication officer Orla Jones concluded that he had been “subjected to discrimination on the grounds of gender when he was subjected to less favourable treatment solely on the grounds of his transgender identity”.
Ms Jones noted Mr E’s evidence in relation to harassment concerned negative references by other leaders to his autism diagnosis, but that there had been “no direct reference” to his gender identity.
She rejected further complaints of harassment and victimisation by Mr E against the organisation and awarded him €5,000 for the effects of discrimination.
In setting the value of the redress, Ms Jones wrote that she was taking into account that the respondent was a “voluntary organisation with limited funding”, as well as the legal requirement for “dissuasive” compensation.
