A supermarket security guard said that a man who took a discrimination claim against his workplace “said nasty things to me” and used the ‘N word’ when he asked him to pull up his face mask.
However, the complainant, himself a manager at a different supermarket, denied using the ‘N’ word and maintained that the mask was covering his mouth but not his nose – and it was not under his chin as the security guard claimed.
Kamil Janowicz’s claim under the Equal Status Act against Ridge Trading Limited, trading as Regans Supervalu Firhouse, was rejected in a decision published on Monday by the Workplace Relations Commission.
Mr Janowicz alleged he was discriminated against on the grounds of disability when he was asked to fully cover his nose and mouth with a face mask on December 1st 2020 – as he maintained he had a medical condition and did not “tolerate” wearing a mask.
He said he went to the shop around 1.20pm on the day after collecting his four-year-old son from school and was asked by the security guard to wear his mask “full-face”, covering his nose and mouth.
Mr Janowicz told a hearing in May this year that he told the guard he “could not wear the mask fully as he had a medical condition” and “had a medical certificate to this effect”.
Asked by the security guard to show the certificate, he replied that he was “not entitled to see this document”, he said, adding that the manager was called.
The complainant said the manager told him “everyone had to wear a mask and that he should show his certificate”.
He replied that the manager had no right to the information or demand it, he said, but that he then showed him the document.
The manager then told him to leave “as he was rude to the security officer”, he added.
Mr Janowicz said his son was upset and crying because of the shouting, and he left.
The supermarket management denied any discrimination and said Mr Janowicz was refused entry because of his “aggressive and verbally abusive conduct”.
During their interaction, Mr Janowicz “said nasty things to me”, the security guard said, and also used the ‘N’ word.
Under cross-examination by solicitor Anita Moran of McLoughlin & Co, who appeared for the supermarket, Mr Janowicz denied using the ‘N’ word.
He also maintained that he arrived to the shop with his face mask covering his mouth but not his nose – and that it was not under his chin as the security guard claimed.
Both sides agreed that CCTV footage of the incident which was preserved in response to Mr Janowicz’s initial statutory complaint form was of no use as evidence because of its low resolution.
In his decision, adjudicating officer John Harraghy wrote that in any case involving alleged discrimination, the onus was on the complainant to show they were in a protected category.
“The complainant in this case did not have any medical evidence that he was exempted, and he did not provide any details other than a piece of note paper which said that he ‘is/was suffering from [a medical condition]’ and ‘patient does not tolerate mask’,” Mr Harraghy wrote.
He found Mr Janowicz was not discriminated against on the grounds of disability and ruled the complaint not well founded.
