Blind client of dating firm loses bias claim

A BLIND woman who claims she was told by a dating agency ‘you’re not a size ten’ has lost her discrimination case in an adjudication hearing at the Workplace Relations Commission.

The woman, whose identity has been protected, lodged a complaint with the WRC, stating that she had been denied service at the dating agency on the grounds of her visual impairment.

The complainant, who described herself as being ‘totally blind’, said she had heard advertisements on the radio for the dating agency in question, and on May 17, 2016, she rang and enquired about joining.

She mentioned that she was totally blind and claimed she was immediately met with a rejection from a woman who handled the call. She said she became ‘very distressed’ at this point and requested to be put onto the manager.

She said she spoke to the owner of the agency, who explained to her that her name would be placed on a waiting list and ‘it takes time’.

The complainant said she did not like the owner’s tone and she never received confirmation of being placed on the waiting list. She said that she felt ‘totally discriminated against and blocked out of the system’.

She claimed the woman who initially handled her call told her ‘she was not a size ten’, but she was not asked her dress size when the remark was made. The agency, which was also not named in the ruling, denied discrimination, and said it has ‘an inclusive policy and treat all enquiries with respect and courtesy’.

It said the woman was given information about the company, how the process works, and its prices.

The agency said that it does have a waiting list and that it ‘takes on new members once they are confident that they can provide a guaranteed number of introductions and a satisfactory service’.

It said the prospective client said she needed assistance as she was totally blind, while she stated she told them she had received mobility training with the assistance of guide dogs.

The agency said she was then asked if she would be in a position to travel around the country to meet prospective introductions, at which point she ‘became irate and asked to speak to a manager’.

The agency said the complainant’s daughter, who also has a visual impairment, had been a past member of the agency following an initial refusal, due to apprehension on the specific requirements sought.

The daughter was eventually accepted, but was unhappy with the service, which culminated in an outof-court settlement.

The agency said that it had not made the connection between the two occurrences until it received the letter from the WRC. The complainant denied she was deliberately testing the agency based on her daughter’s previous experience. The adjudication officer found that the complainant was not discriminated against on grounds of disability under the Equal Status Act (2000).

She felt totally discriminated against