Annual Report 2025 Appendices

Ground: Race    

Number of clients: 1            

Details: We provided a grant of legal assistance for legal advice to a client regarding a claim of racial discrimination and harassment in his previous place of employment, which led to his resignation. The client was provided with legal advice on racial discrimination and harassment in the employment context and the legal remedies available.

Ground: Protected Leave                         

Number of clients: 1

Details: We provided a grant of legal advice to a client in relation to a complaint that they were excluded from a promotion process while on parents’ leave. The client also complained of a failure to provide reasonable accommodation while on certified sick leave. The client was provided with legal advice in relation to both matters.

Ground: Disability / Reasonable Accommodation                   

Number of clients: 1

Details: We provided a grant of legal advice to a client with a disability regarding a claim of discrimination in seeking to access employment in the public sector. The client complained that an offer of employment was revoked due to the employer’s perception that the role was unsuitable for a person with the client’s particular disability. The client was provided with legal advice on their rights under employment equality legislation.

Ground: Disability / Reasonable Accommodation

Number of clients: 1

Details: We provided a grant of legal advice to a client with a disability who had sought reasonable accommodation in order to access their accommodation.  The client complained that the landlord/management company failed to provide the reasonable accommodation sought.  Legal advice was provided regarding the relevant rights arising under the Equal Status Acts.

Ground: Race

Number of clients: 1

Details: We provided legal advice to a student who complained that they had experienced discrimination on the ground of race in trying to access the services of a third level education provider. The client complained that the provider treated them less favourably in declining them access to course materials and lectures following their enrolment on their chosen course. We provided legal advice to the client regarding the interaction between the State’s Springboard+ programme and the third level institute. 

Ground: Membership of the Traveller Community

Number of clients: 2

Details: We provided a couple with practical assistance and legal advice regarding a complaint of discrimination against a hotel on the grounds of membership of the Traveller community.

Ground: Disability

Number of clients: 1

Details: We provided legal advice to a client, who is a minor, regarding an incident of indirect discrimination on the grounds of disability in a school. 

Issue: Fair Procedures / Access to Temporary Protection

Number of clients: 1

Details: We provided practical assistance and legal advice to a Ukrainian client of Roma ethnicity in relation to their application for Temporary Protection. 

Issue: Disability

Number of clients: 1

Details: We provided legal advice to a client regarding an appeal before the Disabled Drivers Appeal Board. Subsequently the client advised us that they successfully obtained a Primary Medical Certificate to access the Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers Scheme (DDP).

Issue: Disability

Number of clients: 2

Details: We provided legal advice to two clients who wished to challenge the proposed transition of an adult out of Wardship into the Assisted Decision-Making Capacity Act system.

Issue: Housing

Number of clients: 1

Details: We provided legal advice to a client in relation to their complaint against a County Council that the client alleged failed to provide them with suitable accommodation. 

Issue: Fair Procedures

Number of clients: 1

Details: We provided legal advice to a client who had referred a complaint of discrimination to the Workplace Relations Commission on his behalf and on behalf of his wife alleging that a service provider had discriminated against them on the ground of disability and/or failed to provide reasonable accommodation.

Members of the Traveller Community v. A Restaurant

Ground: Membership of the Traveller Community

Number of clients: 6

Issue: We provided legal advice and representation to this extended family who are members of the Traveller community in relation to a complaint of discrimination when a reservation at a restaurant was cancelled.  A complaint of discrimination on the grounds of membership of the Traveller community was submitted to the WRC under the ESA.

Outcome: With the benefit of our legal assistance, this case settled to the satisfaction of all clients, including an apology and compensation.

Members of the Traveller Community v. A Hotel

Ground: Membership of the Traveller community

Number of clients: 12

Issue: We provided legal advice and representation to twelve family members in relation to a complaint of discrimination when trying to access accommodation from a hotel. A complaint of discrimination on the grounds of membership of the Traveller community was submitted to the WRC under the ESA.

Outcome: With the benefit of our legal assistance, this case settled to the satisfaction of all clients, with the hotel issuing an apology and compensation to the clients.

An Individual v. A Service Provider

Ground: Disability

Number of clients: 1

Issue: We provided legal advice and representation to a Deaf individual in relation to the failure of a service provider to provide reasonable accommodation and discrimination on the grounds of disability.

The client in this case was refused service when they attempted to gain access to the service with the assistance of an Irish Sign Language interpreter. 

Outcome: The matter settled to the satisfaction of the client at mediation before the WRC.

A Pupil (Minor suing by her Next Friend) v. A Secondary School

Ground: Membership of the Traveller Community

Number of clients: 1

Issue: We provided legal advice and representation to a minor client who was left in an empty classroom without supervision for hours after they arrived late for school. A complaint of discrimination on the grounds of membership of the Traveller community was submitted to the WRC under the ESA.

Outcome: The case was heard in an adjudication before the WRC in September 2024. The adjudication officer found that the complainant had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination arising from their membership of the Traveller community.

An Individual v. A Shopping Centre

Ground: Race / Ethnicity

Number of clients: 1

Issue: We provided legal advice and representation to a client who is a member of the Roma community in relation to a complaint of discrimination and harassment on the grounds of race, experienced when attempting to access a shopping centre. The client submitted a complaint of discrimination on the grounds of race to the WRC under the ESA. 

Outcome: The matter was finalised to the satisfaction of the client.

An Individual v. A Healthcare Insurance Provider

Ground: Disability

Number of clients: 1

Issue: We provided legal advice and representation to a Deaf individual in relation to complaint of discrimination on the grounds of disability while accessing the services of a healthcare insurance provider. The service provider required the client to provide prior written permission to the use of an Irish Sign Language interpreter when contacting the service over the phone.

Outcome: The matter settled to the satisfaction of the client at mediation before the WRC.

Danut Nae v. Supervalu

Ground: Race

Number of clients:1

Issue: We provided legal advice and representation to this client in relation to a complaint of discrimination and harassment on the grounds of race when accessing services in a grocery shop. 

Outcome: The WRC adjudication officer found that the complainant had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the grounds of race.

A Customer v. A Shop

Ground: Access to services

Number of clients:   1

Issue: We provided legal advice and representation to a Deaf client in relation to a complaint of discrimination on the grounds of disability when accessing a shop. The client submitted a complaint of discrimination on the grounds of disability to the WRC under the ESA.

Outcome: The matter settled to the satisfaction of the client at mediation before the WRC.

A Member of the Traveller Community v. A Shop

Ground: Membership of the Traveller Community

Number of clients:   1

Issue: We provided legal advice and limited representation to a client in relation to a complaint against a shop regarding discrimination on the grounds of membership of the Traveller community.

Outcome: Following legal advice, the client decided not to proceed with the matter.

Members of the Traveller Community v. A Grocery Store

Ground: Membership of the Traveller Community

Number of clients: 3

Issue: We provided legal advice and representation to three family members in relation to a complaint of discrimination and harassment when attempting to access services from a grocery store. A complaint of discrimination on the grounds of membership of the Traveller community was submitted to the WRC under the ESA.

Outcome: The matter settled on the day of the hearing to the satisfaction of both parties.

William Gallagher v. Jenny Brennan and Matthew Hannigan

Ground: Housing Assistance

Number of clients: 1

Issue: We provided practical assistance, advice and legal representation before the WRC to a client in a case of discrimination and victimisation by his landlords on the housing assistance payment ground. 

Outcome: The matter was successful at WRC adjudication, and the Complainant was awarded a total of €23,000 in compensation. This amount comprised the jurisdictional maximum award of compensation for discrimination, which is €15,000, and a further award of €8,000 for the effects of victimisation.

An ISL User v. A Utility Service Provider

Ground: Disability

Number of clients: 1

Issue: We provided legal advice and representation to a Deaf client in relation to a complaint of discrimination on the grounds of disability. The client had attempted to phone the utility provider with the assistance of an ISL interpreter. The service provider required the client to provide prior written permission to the use of an Irish Sign Language interpreter when contacting the service over the phone.

Outcome: The matter settled on the day of the hearing to the satisfaction of both parties.

A Pupil and their Parent v. A Secondary School

Ground: Disability

Number of clients: 2

Issue: We provided advice and legal representation before the WRC to a minor client and their parent in relation to a complaint of discrimination, harassment and sexual harassment experienced by the child at school.

Outcome:  The matter settled on the day of the hearing to the satisfaction of both parties.

A Family v. Offaly County Council

Ground: Housing

Number of clients: 4

Issue: We provided legal advice and limited representation to a family of four (two adults and two young children) in relation to a request seeking emergency accommodation from Offaly County Council.

Outcome: The clients were offered vouchers to access emergency accommodation; however, they were unable to source emergency accommodation using the voucher. 

Members of the Traveller Community v. A Coffee Shop

Ground: Membership of the Traveller Community

Number of clients: 10

Issue: We provided legal advice and representation to this extended family in relation to a complaint of discrimination at a coffee shop in the West of Ireland. The family, which included four young children, had been on holiday and went to visit a nearby café and bakery. When the clients arrived in the car park in two campervans and a car, management told them they couldn’t park there as their vehicles were too big. When the clients approached the café and bakery, the same management ran down in front of them and began closing the coffee shop, informing the clients that the café was closed. The clients were then followed out of the premises. A complaint of discrimination on the grounds of membership of the Traveller community was submitted to the WRC under the ESA.

Outcome: Mediation took place before the WRC and a settlement agreement was reached to the satisfaction of both parties, which included the payment of compensation.

Members of the Traveller Community v. A University

Ground: Membership of the Traveller Community

Number of clients: 4

Issue: We provided legal advice and representation to four separate clients in relation to a complaint of discrimination when attempting to access educational services within a university.

Outcome: The matter settled to the satisfaction of the four clients, to include an apology and compensation.

A Pupil and their Parent v. A Secondary School and A Statutory Body

Ground: Gender and Disability

Number of clients: 2

Issue: We provided legal advice and limited legal representation to a minor client and their parent regarding a request for reasonable accommodation for the State examinations. The clients were still awaiting a decision on their request two weeks before the commencement of the exams.

Outcome: The matter resolved when a positive decision was made on the client’s application for reasonable accommodation for the State examinations.

Ayman Abdul Samad v. Allied Irish Banks

Ground: Race

Number of clients: 1

Issue: We provided legal advice and representation to a client in an adjudication hearing before the WRC in relation to a claim of discrimination on the grounds of race under the ESA.

Outcome: The WRC adjudication officer found in the bank’s favour and the client decided not to appeal the decision.

Mary Tracy v. Smurfit Kappa Ireland Ltd t/a the Educational Company of Ireland

Ground: Disability / Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation / Victimisation / Discriminatory Dismissal

Number of clients: 1

Issue: We provided legal advice and representation to a client in relation to a complaint of discrimination on the grounds of disability, failure to provide reasonable accommodation, victimisation and ultimately discriminatory dismissal.

The client disclosed details of her disability from the outset of her employment and sought reasonable accommodations, which were ultimately refused. She was dismissed while on sick leave for refusing to accept an alternative role offered to her. 

Outcome: Following the adjudication hearing, the WRC found that the employer had failed to comply with employment equality legislation regarding the provision of reasonable accommodation for the client’s disability, and that she was directly discriminated against by the employer in relation to her dismissal from employment. The client was awarded compensation to the total of €64,000.

An Employee v. A Hotel

Ground: Membership of the Traveller Community

Number of clients: 1

Issue: We provided legal advice and representation to a client who was harassed during the course of his employment, including a physical assault, arising as a result of him being a member of the Traveller community.

Outcome: A settlement agreement was reached to the satisfaction of both parties on the day of the WRC hearing. The settlement includes the provision of Traveller specific awareness training to all staff within the hotel chain.

An Employee v. A State Department

Ground: Gender and Sexual Orientation

Number of clients: 1

Issue:  We provided legal advice and representation before the WRC to a client in relation to a complaint of discrimination on the grounds of gender and sexual orientation, harassment and sexual harassment, which was brought against their employer on the basis of the actions of co-workers.

Outcome: The matter settled on the day of the hearing to the satisfaction of both parties.

Two Employees v A Fast Food Restaurant

Ground: Race 

Number of clients: 2

Issue: We provided legal advice and representation to two separate clients in relation to a claim of racial harassment in the workplace, arising as a result of them both being members of the Roma community.

Outcome: A settlement agreement was reached to the satisfaction of both parties on the day of the WRC hearing, to include compensation.

Members of the Traveller Community v. A Licensed Premises

Ground: Discrimination on the ground of Membership of the Traveller Community

Number of clients: 4

Issue: We provided legal advice and representation to four clients in relation to the refusal of entry to a licenced premises in County Dublin. The four clients had booked a table in a bar to celebrate a birthday, and they were stopped by security at the door. The clients were asked if they had a booking and they responded that they did. The staff went inside to check the booking and, on their return, informed the clients that their booking was gone as they were 5 minutes late. During this time, the clients noted that other people were being let into the bar and that it appeared that these customers did not have bookings at all. We assisted the clients in bringing a complaint of discrimination against the licensed premises to the District Court on the grounds of membership of the Traveller community.

Outcome: On the date of the hearing, the matter settled to the satisfaction of the clients, including compensation.

A Member of the Traveller Community v. A Licensed Premises

Ground: Membership of the Traveller Community

Number of clients: 1

Issue: We provided legal advice and representation to a client in relation to a complaint of discrimination on the ground of membership of the Traveller community. The client had made a booking at a licensed premises in County Dublin over the phone. When they visited the premises in person to pay the required booking deposit, they were informed that they could no longer accept the booking. The client believed that this refusal was made on the basis of their membership of the Traveller community.

Outcome: This case was settled to the satisfaction of the client.

Members of the Traveller Community v. A Licensed Premises

Ground: Membership of the Traveller Community

Number of clients: 2

Issue: We provided legal advice and representation to two clients in relation to a refusal of service on a licensed premises in County Leitrim. The clients issued proceedings in the District Court and also made a complaint to the WRC to protect their position as it was not clear whether the liquor licence extended to the outdoor seating where the clients were refused service. In the District Court, the matter was struck out on the basis of incorrect jurisdiction on application of the Licensed Premises. At the WRC hearing, the licensed premises produced the license to cover the outside seating area, and the WRC therefore declined jurisdiction. New proceedings were again filed in the District Court.

Outcome: On the date of the hearing, the matter settled to the satisfaction of the clients, including compensation.

A Member of the Traveller Community v. A Licensed Premises

Ground: Membership of the Traveller Community

Number of clients: 1

Issue: We provided legal advice and representation to a client who is a member of the Traveller community in relation to a claim of discrimination against a hotel and licenced premises in County Donegal.

On St. Patrick's Day 2024, the client went into a hotel bar to watch a football game while his wife and grandchildren attended the local parade. He ordered a soft drink and he was refused service and informed that he was barred from the hotel. The manager cited previous noise complaints regarding a group of Travellers the client was with, resulting in the hotel refunding a number of customers the cost of their stay. The client disputed this claim, stating that no complaints were made to the group and that the group left the hotel without incident.  He believed he was barred on the basis of his membership of the Traveller community.

Outcome: Following legal advice, the client decided not to proceed with the matter.

A Litigant v. WRC

Ground: Right to fair procedures

Number of clients:   1

Issue: We provided legal representation to a client to challenge a decision of the Workplace Relations Commission by way of judicial review in the High Court. The client brought a claim to the WRC in relation to a complaint of racial discrimination that he experienced while accessing services in a grocery shop. During the adjudication proceedings, concerns were raised regarding the client’s right of access to justice, having regard to the actions of the Adjudication Officer and their failure to adequately investigate the claim by making a determination on the claim notwithstanding a planned adjourned hearing date.

Outcome: On consent, an order was made by the High Court quashing the original decision of the WRC and remitting the case to the WRC for re-hearing before a different Adjudication Officer. 

N and Ors v. Minister for Foreign Affairs and Ors

Ground: Citizenship by descent – equality under the Constitution

Number of clients: 2

Issue: A naturalised Irish citizen had to register the birth of their child abroad on the foreign birth register in order to have their child’s Irish citizenship recognised. The client brought a High Court challenge to the constitutionality of the Foreign Birth Register requirement, saying that it unlawfully discriminated against them and their family when compared to Irish citizens by birth, whose children were automatically Irish citizens when born abroad without the requirement for registration. 

Outcome: The High Court heard this constitutional challenge over the course of two days in December. Judgment is awaited.

A Ukrainian Couple v. Department of Justice

Ground: Ukrainian nationals of Roma ethnicity refused Temporary Protection

Number of clients: 2

Issue: We provided legal advice and representation to a couple who are Ukrainian Roma nationals in relation to the husband’s refusal of Temporary Protection on arrival.

Outcome: Temporary Protection was granted to the husband, and the family were reunified.

An IP Applicant v. State Agency

Ground: International Protection / Reception Conditions / Accommodation / Age 

Number of clients: 1

Issue: We provided legal advice and representation to a client who is an applicant for international protection whose age was in dispute. The client was deemed an adult by State Agencies and was refused appropriate child care services. 

Outcome: Following engagement with the relevant State Agency and a further assessment, the client was provided with childcare services.  

An IP Applicant v. State Agencies

Ground: International Protection / Reception Conditions / Accommodation / Age

Number of clients: 1

Issue: We provided legal advice and representation to a client who is an applicant for international protection whose age was in dispute.  When the matter failed to resolve through engagement and correspondence, judicial review proceedings were issued against the relevant State Agencies. 

Outcome: The matter settled to the satisfaction of the client.

IHREC v The Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration & Youth, & The Attorney General

Court: High Court and Court of Appeal 

Commenced: 21 December 2023

Status of Case: Ongoing

Details: We brought proceedings before the High Court in our own name, seeking to address the State’s failure to provide for the basic needs, including shelter, of people recently arrived in Ireland and seeking international protection. Applicants for international protection (‘IP applicants’) are entitled to receive material reception conditions under EU and Irish law. Since 04 December 2023, not all IP applicants arriving in Ireland were offered State accommodation. 

In 2024, the High Court declared that the State had failed in its duty to provide for the basic needs, including accommodation, for IP applicants who have recently arrived in Ireland and that this failure amounted to a breach of the applicants’ right to human dignity. The State filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal against the judgment of the High Court. In 2025, the Court of Appeal proceedings continued.

Outcome: The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal on 06 and 07 March 2025. 

In its judgment, delivered on 30 July 2025, the Court of Appeal accepted that the Commission had proved that the IP applicants were in a situation of extreme material poverty. However, in granting the State's appeal, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Commission had not provided adequate evidence to prove that their physical or mental health was undermined or that they were in a state of degradation incompatible with human dignity.

In November 2025, the Supreme Court granted the Commission leave to appeal the Court of Appeal's ruling.

As of December, the case is ongoing.

DOE (No.1) v The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), DOE (No.2) v DPP and DOE (No.3) v DPP

Court: Supreme Court

Commission Intervention: 15 November 2024

Hearing date: 3 and 4 December 2024

Judgment: 9 May 2025

Details: These cases are linked and deal with the loss of statutory protections for children who turn 18 prior to the completion of the criminal process. The cases involve three individuals who were charged with criminal offences, alleged to have been committed when they were under 18 years. The allegations were reported to An Garda Síochána when the three individuals were still minors. Prior to being charged, these individuals turned 18 and, as a consequence, they were no longer entitled to statutory protections provided for under the Children Act 2001, including anonymity. A High Court challenge taken by the individuals to prohibit the trial was unsuccessful. However, the High Court held that the loss of anonymity was potentially prejudicial and ordered reporting restrictions during the course of the trials of the individuals. Both the State and the accused individuals appealed this decision of the High Court to the Supreme Court. The Attorney General was also a Notice Party.

Commission’s role: In our role as amicus curiae we submitted that a young person who turns 18 prior to the completion of the criminal process should be entitled to apply for anonymity in respect of offences allegedly committed as a child.

Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in a unanimous judgment. The judgment found that where a defendant has lost the protection of the Children Act, due to prosecutorial delay, a court should consider granting remedies falling short of prohibition of the trial to address the effects of the breach on the interests of the defendant. The relevant court could consider making an order of anonymity, equivalent to the protections set down in section 93 of the Children Act. This would also permit a court to lift this order, on application by an appropriate person for the reasons set out in section 93, to include if it is in the public interest to do so.

ZG and EW (a minor) v. Ireland and the Attorney General

Court: Supreme Court

Commission Intervention: 5 February 2025

Hearing Date: 8 May 2025

Judgment: 26 November 2025

Details: The case was brought by ZG and EW (a child who brought the case with the assistance of their aunt). The child had lived with their mother as a one-parent family, in an apartment rented from an Approved Housing Body, Clúid Housing. The child’s mother died suddenly in July 2023. As the child was not yet eighteen years old, they were told that they did not come within the list of eligible people who may inherit a tenancy under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 (the “2004 Act”). In September 2023, Clúid Housing sought to end the tenancy and the child has lived with their grandparents ever since. A High Court case was taken, challenging the constitutionality of section 39 of the 2004 Act on the basis that it discriminated against the child, and the challenge was unsuccessful. The High Court decided that the difference in treatment between the child and a person over 18 seeking to inherit a tenancy under section 39 was lawful. The child and their aunt appealed this decision of the High Court to the Supreme Court.

Commission’s role: In our role as amicus curiae, we assisted the Court in its consideration of the High Court’s ruling with reference to the relevant national and international law. 

Outcome: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision and dismissed the appeal. In its majority judgment, delivered by Chief Justice O’Donnell, the Supreme Court found that the legislation was constitutional. The Supreme Court accepted that age discrimination can occur when children and adults are treated differently. However, in this case, the Supreme Court considered that the reason for the difference in treatment was rational and, therefore, the legislation was lawful and permissible. Mr. Justice Hogan and Ms. Justice Donnelly both issued separate dissenting judgments. Mr. Justice Hogan considered that the Constitution provides strong protection for the inviolability of the home. As the legislation did not provide for any possibility for the continued tenancy by the child, he considered that this compromised the essence of the constitutional guarantees. Ms. Justice Donnelly considered that the legislation was inconsistent with the constitutional protections of the rights of the child and the equality guarantees.

Digital Rights Ireland Limited

Digital Rights Ireland Limited v. The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, The Commissioner for The Garda Síochána, Ireland and The Attorney General

Court: High Court

Commission Intervention: 01 July 2008

Status: Ongoing

Details: The proceedings raise issues regarding the scope of the application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (the ‘Charter’) and the Court of Justice of the European Union’s jurisprudence on privacy rights; the substantive application of the proportionality principle and the relationship between the Charter, the Constitution and the ECHR.

Outcome: The proceedings are ongoing.

Freddie Jones

Freddie Jones v Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General

Court: High Court

Commission Intervention: 28 July 2025

Hearing Date: 6 and 7 November 2025

Status: Ongoing

Details: This case concerned a challenge by Mr Jones of the decision of the Minister to refuse him the benefit of his late partner’s civil service pension under the Civil Service Spouses' and Children's Contributory Pension Scheme. 

The couple lived together for almost 25 years until the death of Mr Jones’ partner in 2022. Mr Jones was denied a pension on the basis that, according to the State, the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010 did not provide an entitlement to a spousal pension for cohabitees who were not married or in civil partnerships. 

The State’s position was that the public service pension is only payable to a “spouse” or “civil partner”.

Commission’s Role: In its legal submissions to the High Court, the Commission submitted that the exclusion of qualified cohabitants such as the Applicant from the spouse's pension under the Scheme runs contrary to the guarantee of equality in Article 40.1 of the Constitution. 

Outcome: Judgment in the case was reserved. 

V, W, X, Y & Z v Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Attorney General and Ireland

Court: Supreme Court

Commission Intervention: 14 November 2025

Hearing Date: 16, 17 and 18 December 2025

Status: Ongoing

Details: This case concerned the entitlement to citizenship by descent for children of lesbian couples born through donor-assisted human reproduction procedures outside of the State. 

Over the course of a three-day hearing, the Supreme Court heard that two lesbian couples had conceived babies through a process of shared motherhood IVF. This process involved creating an embryo from an anonymous donor and an egg from one mother and implanting the embryo in the second mother.

In both couples, a non-Irish mother gave birth to a baby that had been conceived using an egg from an Irish mother. Following the birth of the children, their mothers applied to the Minister for Foreign Affairs for Irish passports. 

The Minister declined to issue passports to the children, saying that the birth mothers did not satisfy the definition of the term ‘parent’ under section 7 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956. Both couples sought to challenge the Minister’s decision by way of judicial review. 

In the High Court, Ms. Justice Phelan found in favour of the parents.

The Minister appealed the decision by ‘leap frog appeal’ to the Supreme Court. 

Commission’s role: The Commission submitted that, in failing to provide for a legislative pathway to pass citizenship by descent to the children in these cases, the State had breached the equality provision under Article 40.1 of the Constitution. 

Outcome: Judgment in the case was reserved.

Equality of Opportunity in a Sporting Organisation

Equality Review

In 2024, we invited Gymnastics Ireland to carry out an equality review, consisting of an audit of the level of equality of opportunity that exists in relation to Gymnastics Ireland’s provision of services, under the Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2018.

An account of the Equality Review was published on our website in April.

State Examinations Commission – Provision of Reasonable Accommodation in Education settings

Equality Review and Equality Action Plan 

In 2024, we invited the State Examinations Commission to carry out an Equality Review to address the issue of accessibility of State exams for candidates with a visual impairment, and specifically to address the provision of accessible modified papers, provision of additional time arrangements, and digital paper delivery and form.

The Commission received the Equality Review in April. Having considered the findings of the Equality Review, the Commission has formally invited the State Examinations Commission to prepare and implement an Equality Action Plan. 

An Equality Action Plan is a programme of actions designed to further the promotion of equality of opportunity within an organisation and to address barriers experienced by individuals and groups protected under equality legislation. In inviting the preparation of the Equality Action Plan, the Commission has identified a number of priority areas to be addressed, including the design of modified examination papers, the provision and delivery of digital examination papers, the accessibility of application procedures, consistency of treatment for all students with visual impairments, and the accessibility of information published by the State Examinations Commission.

The Commission has also requested that the Equality Action Plan be developed in consultation with students with visual impairments, representative organisations, schools and other relevant stakeholders, and that it set out specific, measurable and time-bound actions with clear responsibility for implementation.

As of December, this work is ongoing.

Access to employment for individuals with a visual impairment in the public service

Equality Review

We invited two private recruitment agencies, Sigmar Recruitment Consultants Limited and Staffline Recruitment Limited, to carry out an Equality Review to address the issue of accessibility of the recruitment process of public jobs for individuals with a visual impairment. Under the Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Act 2004, the Commission for Public Service Appointments can grant licenses to public bodies to enable them to undertake their own recruitment. Those public bodies can in turn can seek the assistance of a private sector recruitment agency with the tasks associated with the recruitment processes.

As of December this work is ongoing.

Irish Rail – Provision of Reasonable Accommodation

Equality Review

We invited Irish Rail to conduct an Equality Review of its practices and procedures on the provision of reasonable accommodation for disabled passengers using or intending to use its services. We received Irish Rail's equality review in July. The Commission subsequently decided to follow up with the Irish Rail in relation to the equality review received. 

As of December this work is ongoing. 

Provision of ISL interpretation

Equality Review 

We invited six organisations to each carry out an Equality Review on access to services for individuals who are deaf and use Irish Sign Language. 

The organisations invited are: Wexford General Hospital; Beaumont Hospital; Our Lady of Lourdes, Drogheda Hospital; AA Ireland; Permanent TSB plc; and Intreo Centres run by the Department of Social Protection. All of the six organisations have accepted this invitation.

As of December, this work is ongoing.