Michael and Margaret Moorehouse, Martin and Mary O' Brien (represented by Haughton's Solicitors) -v- Smith's Public House (represented by Oisín Quinn BL instructed by Thomas Montgomery and Son Solicitors)
Delegation under the Equal Status Act, 2000
These complaints were referred to the Director of Equality Investigations under the Equal Status Acts 2000-2004. In accordance with her powers under section 75 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 and under the Equal Status Act, 2000, the Director has delegated these complaints to me Mary O'Callaghan, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part III of the Equal Status Act, 2000. The hearing of the case was on the 22nd October 2004.
1. Dispute
This dispute concerns claims by Michael and Margaret Moorehouse, and Martin and Mary O'Brien that they were discriminated on the grounds of their membership of the Traveller Community when they were refused service in the Smith's Public House on 7th March 2002. The complainants have alleged that the treatment they received was contrary to Section 3 (2) (i) of the Equal Status Act 2000 and in not being provided with a service which is generally available to the public they were subjected to treatment contrary to Section 5 (1) of the Act.
2. Outline of events
Once the complaints had been lodged, all correspondence submitted to the Tribunal in connection with the complaints was passed between the parties. A hearing of the case was arranged for Friday 22nd October 2004 at 10.30 am. in the Offices of the Equality Tribunal. The legal representatives of both parties were notified of the hearing by letter, issued on 14th September 2004. Confirmation of the attendance by all parties was received prior to the hearing from the solicitors representing the complainants by phone and from the solicitors representing the respondent both by fax and post. No application for an adjournment of the hearing was lodged by either party. On the date of the hearing the respondent party together with his legal representatives and the complainant's legal representative attended at the Tribunal for the hearing of the case. At the time scheduled for the commencement of the hearing none of the complainants were in attendance and they had not contacted the Tribunal either by phone or letter indicating the reason for their non-attendance. As Equality Officer I took the decision to wait until 30 minutes after the time arranged for the hearing to commence to give the complainants every chance to arrive or to make contact with the Tribunal if an unexpected event had prevented their attendance or to explain why they had not appeared. The hearing then commenced at 11.05 am. All of those in attendance completed the attendance sheet which was circulated and at that point I enquired if the complainants were present. Their legal representative confirmed they were not. I then enquired if the complainants had been notified and it was confirmed by their solicitor that they had. It was suggested that they may have contacted the Tribunal offices by telephone and therefore I adjourned the hearing for 5 minutes to
enable me to clarify whether such a phone call had been received. On checking it was confirmed that there was no record of any contact from the complainants to the office regarding this hearing. I am satisfied that the complainants had been notified of the hearing. On resumption of the hearing I explained that there had been no contact from the
complainants and that in their absence they could not establish prima facie cases of discrimination. The onus is on a complainant to establish a prima facie case. The respondent therefore had no case to answer.
Decision
In these cases the complainants did not appear at the hearing and having failed to appear did not establish prima facie cases of discrimination on the Traveller community ground. Therefore, I find for the respondent, Smith's Public House.
_________________
Mary O'Callaghan
Equality Officer
28th October 2002