Wife fails in discrimination case against car dealership

A woman’s claim that she was unlawfully discriminated against by a car dealership after it cancelled a car purchase following the intervention of her estranged husband has failed.

In an equal status case before the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), the woman said she had put a deposit on a car in September 2015 but was told it was a demonstration model and would not be available until that December.

The woman’s estranged husband later visited the dealership and objected to the purchase, saying he did not like the car, the price or the fact it had no sunroof. “The deal is off, we’ll be in touch soon,” he told the dealership.

The woman contacted the dealership ahead of the expected purchase and learned the vehicle had already been sold.

Turkey nightclub shooting: Manhunt after at least 39 killed

---

Fear about high rate of HIV positive prisoners in 1980s

---

Request for prison staff opposed on grounds of finance

---

Unionist politician tried to link Haughey to ‘Eksund’ arms seizure

---

Not acceptable

She was offered an apology and alternatives, which were not acceptable to her, and brought a case against the dealership under the Equal Status Act.

The woman alleged the dealership would not have accepted the cancellation had the gender roles been reversed. She said a presumption of unlawful discrimination has been raised and the dealership had not given a fair and reasonable explanation for its behaviour.

The car salesman said he relied on commission and would not accept the loss of a sale easily. As far as he was concerned, the man was “clearly acting on behalf of his wife” and he was not aware of the woman’s marital status.

The dealership owner told the hearing it was not uncommon for one spouse to challenge a purchase undertaken by the other and he cited a case where a sale was cancelled following the intervention of the wife involved.

WRC adjudication officer Pat Brady said the facts were unusual in the case and supported a view that the purchase was a joint enterprise between the couple.It would be unfair to the dealership to conclude that it acted as it did because it presumed the woman needed her husband's permission to make the purchase.

“There is more than sufficient doubt about that contention to render it an unsafe basis for a finding against them.”