Ireland / Workplace Relations Commission / Nadjima Ghazouna Adda v Word Perfect Translation Services Limited ADJ-00042443

Country

Ireland

Title

Ireland / Workplace Relations Commission / Nadjima Ghazouna Adda v Word Perfect Translation Services Limited ADJ-00042443

View full case

Year

2023

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Thursday, January 25, 2024

Incident(s) concerned/related

Discrimination

Related Bias motivation

Religion
Racial or ethnic origin

Groups affected

Muslims

Court/Body type

National Court

Court/Body

Workplace Relations Commission

Key facts of the case

The complainant Nadjima Ghazouna Adda, an Algerian national and PhD student, alleged discrimination by her employer, Word Perfect Translation Services Limited, based on religion and race. Employed as an interpreter since June 2021, Adda reported that after a managerial change in February 2022, she faced differential treatment, including reprimands for minor tardiness and restrictions on breaks. On May 18, 2022, during a phone conversation, her manager allegedly used offensive language, including a derogatory term referencing her Muslim faith. "The Complaint further stated in the form that on 18 May 2022 at approximately 4.20pm, the manager telephoned her and in the course of the conversation he said to her words along the lines of “very f…..g stupid and f…..g Muslim”. The Complainant stated that she was shocked and very upset. " She received a termination letter the following day, May 19, 2022.

Main reasoning/argumentation

The complainant, Nadjima Ghazouna Adda, alleged that she was discriminated against based on her religion (Muslim) and race (Algerian origin). She claimed her manager made an offensive remark referencing her Muslim faith and that she faced differential treatment, including reprimands and restrictions. The respondent denied the allegations, stating that her dismissal was unrelated to discrimination. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) found that there was insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of racial or religious discrimination.

Is the case related to the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive?

Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case

The case highlights the burden of proof in discrimination claims, requiring complainants to provide enough evidence before the employer must respond. It also reinforces that offensive language alone does not automatically prove discrimination unless linked to an adverse employment action. The case also addressed the importance of clear procedural fairness in dismissals and the challenges in proving discrimination when the employer provides alternative explanations.

Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case

The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) found that the complainant, Ms. Adda, did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on religion or race. The WRC concluded that the evidence presented did not support her claims of differential treatment or discriminatory dismissal by Word Perfect Translation Services Limited. Consequently, her complaint was not upheld.

Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details

"The Complainant did not proffer any evidence to show that the treatment she was subjected to was less favourable than the treatment afforded to a comparator, actual or hypothetical, who does not have the characteristic relied upon. She has not evidenced that– because she is Algerian and/or a Muslim – she was treated adversely compared with the way her colleagues were treated. The Complainant is making general, sweeping allegations that she was treated less favourably because of her race and/or religion, without any specific evidence to support these assertions. This does not meet the very first requirement for a complaint of discrimination to be established, that a complainant must show that a comparator of a different race and/or religion was treated more favourably."

DISCLAIMERThe information presented here is collected under contract by the FRA's research network FRANET. The information and views contained do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA.