Refusing access to the canteen or extracurricular is discrimination

The administrative court of Poitiers, with a sentence of 3 October ⁽¹⁾, commented on a mayor’s decision which the applicant described as discriminatory, abusive, outrageous and humiliating. The applicant, mother of two children, asked the mayor that her children benefit from the extracurricular catering and crèche services organized in the municipality.

One of her children is the subject of an individualized care plan (PAI). Regarding the latter, the mayor refused to accept the mother’s request, as she is unemployed. She pointed out that only the catering service would be accessible to her son if she managed to find a job, and on condition that she presented a certificate to that effect drawn up by her employer.

A right for everyone

Remember that enrollment in the primary school canteen, when this service exists, is a right of all school children. No discrimination can be established on the basis of their situation or that of their family. Local authorities can legally refuse the admission of a pupil only in one case: when, on the date of their decision, the maximum reception capacity of this public service has been reached.

In this case, the mayor refused access to school and after-school catering services to this boy on the basis of his mother’s professional inactivity and, again, imposing certain conditions of justification.

Two reasons for refusal

The existence of the individualized care plan for the child also motivated the decision to refuse registration, because the protocol to be followed in the event of an emergency appeared too complex to be implemented by the municipal agents. The young child suffers from epilepsy, a common and mostly harmless condition.

The judge decides that, by refusing this child access to school catering and after-school childcare services, because the mother is not exercising a professional activity and a PAI against him must be applied, the mayor has maintained two criteria of discrimination unrelated to the purpose of the public services in question, and has infringed the principle of equal access to such public services. His decision is reversed.