Ireland / Workplace Relations Commission / Nadjima Ghazouna Adda v Word Perfect Translation Services Limited ADJ-00042443
Country
Ireland
Title
Year
Decision/ruling/judgment date
Incident(s) concerned/related
Related Bias motivation
Groups affected
Court/Body type
Court/Body
Key facts of the case
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."