Edward O'Reilly (Represented by Tallaght Travellers CDP) V Fowlers Pub Grange Cross (Represented by Mason Hayes and Curran Solicitors)
Keywords
Equal Status Act, 2000 - Membership of the Traveller Community Section 3(2)(i) - Supply of Goods and Services Section 5 (1) - Establishment of a Prima Facie Case - Action taken in good faith Section 15 (2)
Delegation under the Equal Status Act, 2000
This complaint was referred to the Director of Equality Investigations under the Equal Status Act 2000. 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 this complaint 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 took place over two hearing days commencing on Thursday 17th April 2003 and concluding with the review of video evidence on Thursday 31st July 2003. Oral evidence for the complainant was provided by the complainant and his wife. Evidence for the respondent was provided by the respondent, and several members of the bar staff and one ex-doorman from the pub.
1. Dispute
This dispute concerns a claim by Mr. Edward O'Reilly that he was discriminated against on the ground of his membership of the Traveller Community when he sought access to Fowlers Pub, Grange Cross Ballyfermot in December 2000. Mr. O'Reilly alleges that the treatment he received was contrary to Section 3 (2) (i) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 and that in not being provided with a service which is generally available to the public he was subjected to treatment contrary to Section 5(1) of the Act.
The respondent maintains that there were legitimate reasons for refusing Mr. O'Reilly on two occasions in December when Mr. O' Reilly was refused access. On the first of these occasions there was a fire on the premises and no patrons were being admitted. On the second occasion he was recognised as someone who had been involved in a disruptive incident in the pub previously and was barred. The respondent maintained that the barring would have applied on the occasion of the fire also if the complainant had been recognised.
2. Summary of the Complainant's Case
The complainant stated that when he arrived at Fowler's, Grange Cross on the 23rd1 December 2001 he was refused entry and was told that the refusal was because that 1 There is disagreement between the parties about the dates of the refusals. The complainant's view is that they occurred on the 23rd and 24th December 2000, while the respondent maintains that Mr. O'Reilly was refused on the 24th December and the 26th December 2000. there had been a fire in the premises. On a subsequent visit on the 24th December, he was again refused. In this latter incident he was told that he had been involved in a recent incident at the pub involving a group, where drink had been spilled. Mr. O'Reilly submits that he does not recall any drink being spilled and that he was in the bar with his wife only and was not part of a group. Mr. O' Reilly alleges that the reason for the refusal of service is not for the reasons given by the bar owner but because of his membership of the Traveller Community.
3. Summary of the Respondent's Case
The respondent rejects that he operates a discriminatory policy against Travellers and maintains that he has served and continues to serve Travellers in the Pub. He says that Mr. O' Reilly was refused access to the pub on the 24th of December 2000 and on the 26th December 2002 rather than on the 23rd and 24th as alleged by the complainant. He maintains that the complainant was involved in an incident, involving a group, at the pub a few days earlier where drink was spilled, glasses were broken and which caused difficulty for the staff. On leaving, the group, which included the complainant, left the area where they had been seated in a wet and messy condition. A decision was taken at that time to bar all the members of the group from the pub and it is for this reason that the complainant was refused entry to the pub on the 26th December 2000. The refusal on the 24th of December arose purely from a fire in one of the ladies toilets where the pub was closed to the public for a time during that day. However, the respondents say that they would not have admitted the complainant on that day, if he had been recognised as one of the group from the spilled drinks incident.
4. Conclusions of the Equality Officer
I find that the complainant has not succeeded in establishing a prima-facie case of discrimination on the traveller community ground. While it is accepted that he is a member of the Traveller Community (and therefore covered by the Traveller Community ground) and both parties agree that he was refused access to and service at Fowler's, Grange Cross, he has not succeeded in establishing that the refusals were any less favourable than would have been accorded anyone seeking service at the pub in similar circumstances.
In reaching this decision I have taken account of the following.
- That there was a fire in a toilet in Fowlers Pub on the occasion of the first incident complained of and in such circumstances patrons should not be admitted to a premises in the interest of public safety.
- Video evidence showed the numbers of patrons in the pub decreasing during the period of the fire and additional patrons were not seen to be entering.
- In relation to the second incident complained of, the evidence of the numerous respondent's witnesses is compelling in its support of the respondent's contention that there was trouble among a group on a previous occasion and that the complainant was believed to be part of that group.
- That although the complainant asserted that there was no trouble from the group in the pub on the earlier occasion he still felt it necessary during his evidence to distance himself and his wife from the activities of those sitting alongside and facing them in the pub that night.(The complainant maintained during his evidence that while he and his wife were conversing with the group over the course of the night, they were not part of the group and kept to themselves in relation to the purchase of drink that night.)
- That a licensee of a premises serving intoxicating liquor must maintain an orderly house as part of his obligations under the Licensing Acts 1833 to 1899 and that any action taken in good faith by or on behalf of the holder of a licence for the sole purpose of ensuring compliance with the provisions of the Licensing Acts, 1833 to 1899 is not discrimination (see Section 15.2 Equal Status Act 2000).
- That the second refusal under investigation occurred within a few days of the disturbance involving the group and that it is reasonable to conclude that the actions of the respondent were motivated by that incident rather than by the complainant's membership of the Traveller Community
Decision
I find that on the two occasions complained of by the complainant where he was refused access to and service by Fowler's Grange Cross Ballyfermot, Mr. Edward O'Reilly was not discriminated against contrary to Section 3(2) (i) and Section 5 (1) of the Equal Status Act, 2000. In the first instance I find that the respondent had valid, non discriminatory reasons for preventing access to the premises, i.e., safety reasons, as the fire alarm was activated and there was a small fire in a toilet.
On the second occasion, the respondent recognised the complainant as one of group which he had barred as a result of a disorderly incident at the pub a few days previously. In reaching this decision I am not in any way concluding that the complainant himself engaged in any disorderly behaviour on the night prior to the incident when he was conversing with a group of people who were disorderly. My conclusion is that respondent in good faith determined that he was part of the group and as such was barred along with the rest of the group. I have concluded that any customer in similar circumstances would have experienced similar treatment.
The complainant has not, therefore, established a prima facie case of discrimination under the Equal Status Act, 2000 and the complaint does not succeed. I find in favour of the respondent in this case.
Mary O'Callaghan
Equality Officer
3rd November 2003