This is the main content layout table. This structures the main page content, and the secondary menus and banners
Home About Us Services Publications Information Publications Research Publications Codes of Practice Policy Publications Good Practice Publications Annual Reports Casework Reports Newsletters Submissions Articles All Articles Update by CEO Case Reports EU Briefings Information FAQs Events Research Equality Mainstreaming Unit Links Contact Us Translations Sitemap Gaeilge	Case Reports - Autumn 2003 by Patrick O'Leary, Equality Authority Equality Settlement Progresses Partnership Rights for Same-sex Couples Landmark Decision on Age Discrimination in Motor Insurance 1. Equality Settlement Progresses Partnership Rights for Same-sex Couples The Equality Authority has welcomed a settlement with the Department of Social and Family Affairs in a case on the sexual orientation ground. The settlement reflects an important recognition for gay and lesbian couples. The Department of Social and Family Affairs refused to issue a Free Travel Pass (under the Free Travel Scheme) to the co-habiting partner of a gay man. Under the scheme a person who is aged 66 or over and who is married or co-habiting is entitled to a free travel pass which allows a spouse or partner to accompany him or her free of charge when travelling on public transport services. Following intervention by the Equality Authority and a settlement agreed with the Department of Social and Family Affairs, the Free Travel Pass was issued to his partner and both men received E1500 each in compensation. The Department accepted that the Free Travel Pass Scheme, insofar as it did not extend benefits to same-sex and opposite-sex co-habiting couples on an equal basis, was not in conformity with the provisions of the Equal Status Act, 2000. It withdrew formally its letter of 7/11/01 in which it set out reasons for refusing the applicant's application. The Equal Status Act, 2000 contains a major exemption in section 14, which exempts anything that is required by statute. The discriminatory provisions in this case were not contained in statute, but in an administrative scheme. This settlement has widespread ramifications for other equivalent administrative schemes. The Equality Authority will be examining other non-statutory schemes and will be in correspondence with the appropriate authorities if necessary. This settlement will have a beneficial impact on the gay and lesbian community. It is an important acknowledgement of the positive change our equality legislation can realise in relation to gay and lesbian people. It reflects an important accommodation of diversity in acknowledging the needs and rights of gay and lesbian couples. Government Departments and public sector bodies should now equality proof their various non-statutory schemes in the light of this settlement. Such an exercise would provide an opportunity to examine statutory schemes as well. The Equality Authority has previously raised the issue of partnership rights for gay and lesbian couples. The report, 'Implementing Equality for Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals' recommended that same-sex couples should have the legal right to nominate a partner. This is important to address the difficulties that can be experienced by same-sex couples and to ensure an acknowledgement of the valuable diversity gays and lesbians bring to our society. The settlement of this case advances this issue in a small but significant way. While the implications of this settlement only apply to non-statutory administrative schemes the separate development of legal partnership rights should lead to a common approach across statutory and non-statutory schemes. This would be particularly important given the scale and economic significance of so many of the statutory schemes. 2. Landmark Decision on Age Discrimination in Motor Insurance In a landmark decision by the Equality Tribunal the refusal of a motor insurance quotation in 2001 by Royal and Sun Alliance to Mr. Jim Ross was found to be discrimination on the age ground under the Equal Status Act 2000. Mr. Ross was 77 years old at the time and possessed a 7-year no claims bonus. The Equality Officer of the Equality Tribunal in his finding stated that the company's across the board policy of refusing quotations to persons over 70 years of age cannot be accepted and awarded Mr. Ross E2000. The Equality Authority represented Mr. Ross before the Tribunal. The Equality Authority welcomed the finding of the Equality Officer of the Equality Tribunal. The key message of this case is that it is not acceptable to refuse a quotation based solely on a person's age with no account taken of the persons particular circumstances such as a person's driving history. Age limits in the provision of insurance are all too common. Insurance companies will now need to review any existing practices that are still in place where an individual is refused a quotation simply on grounds of age, as recommended by the Equality Officer. The Equal Status Act 2000 prohibits discrimination in the provision of goods, services and facilities on nine grounds including age. Discrimination occurs where a person is treated less favourably on any of the specified grounds. Insurance companies are deemed to be service providers and within the scope of the Act. However there are very broad exemptions that allow insurance companies to discriminate where the difference in the treatment of persons "is effected by reference to actuarial data obtained from a source on which it is reasonable to rely, or other relevant underwriting or commercial factors, and is reasonable having regard to the data or other relevant factors". The Equality Officer in his decision noted that the source and integrity of the data, which the insurance company sought to rely on, was called into question. Moreover he discovered that: Royal and Sun Alliance's policy had no regard to the Declined Cases Agreement which specifically states 'No insurer shall decline a risk on the grounds of age of driver alone' Royal and Sun Alliance had previously indicated to the Motor Insurance Advisory Board that- in respect of older drivers - 'they do not quote unless there is a five-year bonus'. The Equality Authority welcomes the Equality Officer's finding that "what cannot be accepted is the complete refusal of a quotation based solely on a persons age". The Equality Authority continues to be concerned that the exemptions available under the Equal Status Act for insurance companies are too broad. Despite this important decision we continue to recommend that the exemption related to relevant under- writing or commercial factors should be deleted. Note: This article is taken from the Autumn 2003 edition of Equality News	Search Tick the box to search just the current location and its sublocations Advanced Search

Case Reports - Autumn 2003

by Patrick O'Leary, Equality Authority

Equality Settlement Progresses Partnership Rights for Same-sex Couples
Landmark Decision on Age Discrimination in Motor Insurance

1. Equality Settlement Progresses Partnership Rights for Same-sex Couples

The Equality Authority has welcomed a settlement with the Department of Social and Family Affairs in a case on the sexual orientation ground. The settlement reflects an important recognition for gay and lesbian couples.

The Department of Social and Family Affairs refused to issue a Free Travel Pass (under the Free Travel Scheme) to the co-habiting partner of a gay man. Under the scheme a person who is aged 66 or over and who is married or co-habiting is entitled to a free travel pass which allows a spouse or partner to accompany him or her free of charge when travelling on public transport services. Following intervention by the Equality Authority and a settlement agreed with the Department of Social and Family Affairs, the Free Travel Pass was issued to his partner and both men received E1500 each in compensation. The Department accepted that the Free Travel Pass Scheme, insofar as it did not extend benefits to same-sex and opposite-sex co-habiting couples on an equal basis, was not in conformity with the provisions of the Equal Status Act, 2000. It withdrew formally its letter of 7/11/01 in which it set out reasons for refusing the applicant's application.

The Equal Status Act, 2000 contains a major exemption in section 14, which exempts anything that is required by statute. The discriminatory provisions in this case were not contained in statute, but in an administrative scheme. This settlement has widespread ramifications for other equivalent administrative schemes. The Equality Authority will be examining other non-statutory schemes and will be in correspondence with the appropriate authorities if necessary.

This settlement will have a beneficial impact on the gay and lesbian community. It is an important acknowledgement of the positive change our equality legislation can realise in relation to gay and lesbian people. It reflects an important accommodation of diversity in acknowledging the needs and rights of gay and lesbian couples. Government Departments and public sector bodies should now equality proof their various non-statutory schemes in the light of this settlement. Such an exercise would provide an opportunity to examine statutory schemes as well.

The Equality Authority has previously raised the issue of partnership rights for gay and lesbian couples. The report, 'Implementing Equality for Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals' recommended that same-sex couples should have the legal right to nominate a partner.

This is important to address the difficulties that can be experienced by same-sex couples and to ensure an acknowledgement of the valuable diversity gays and lesbians bring to our society. The settlement of this case advances this issue in a small but significant way. While the implications of this settlement only apply to non-statutory administrative schemes the separate development of legal partnership rights should lead to a common approach across statutory and non-statutory schemes. This would be particularly important given the scale and economic significance of so many of the statutory schemes.

2. Landmark Decision on Age Discrimination in Motor Insurance

In a landmark decision by the Equality Tribunal the refusal of a motor insurance quotation in 2001 by Royal and Sun Alliance to Mr. Jim Ross was found to be discrimination on the age ground under the Equal Status Act 2000. Mr. Ross was 77 years old at the time and possessed a 7-year no claims bonus. The Equality Officer of the Equality Tribunal in his finding stated that the company's across the board policy of refusing quotations to persons over 70 years of age cannot be accepted and awarded Mr. Ross E2000. The Equality Authority represented Mr. Ross before the Tribunal.

The Equality Authority welcomed the finding of the Equality Officer of the Equality Tribunal. The key message of this case is that it is not acceptable to refuse a quotation based solely on a person's age with no account taken of the persons particular circumstances such as a person's driving history. Age limits in the provision of insurance are all too common. Insurance companies will now need to review any existing practices that are still in place where an individual is refused a quotation simply on grounds of age, as recommended by the Equality Officer.

The Equal Status Act 2000 prohibits discrimination in the provision of goods, services and facilities on nine grounds including age. Discrimination occurs where a person is treated less favourably on any of the specified grounds. Insurance companies are deemed to be service providers and within the scope of the Act. However there are very broad exemptions that allow insurance companies to discriminate where the difference in the treatment of persons "is effected by reference to actuarial data obtained from a source on which it is reasonable to rely, or other relevant underwriting or commercial factors, and is reasonable having regard to the data or other relevant factors".

The Equality Officer in his decision noted that the source and integrity of the data, which the insurance company sought to rely on, was called into question. Moreover he discovered that:

Royal and Sun Alliance's policy had no regard to the Declined Cases Agreement which specifically states 'No insurer shall decline a risk on the grounds of age of driver alone'
Royal and Sun Alliance had previously indicated to the Motor Insurance Advisory Board that- in respect of older drivers - 'they do not quote unless there is a five-year bonus'.

The Equality Authority welcomes the Equality Officer's finding that "what cannot be accepted is the complete refusal of a quotation based solely on a persons age". The Equality Authority continues to be concerned that the exemptions available under the Equal Status Act for insurance companies are too broad. Despite this important decision we continue to recommend that the exemption related to relevant under- writing or commercial factors should be deleted.

Note: This article is taken from the Autumn 2003 edition of Equality News