Mr. David Conroy & Ms. Winnie Conroy V Feerick's Bar (Represented by Teresa Mullan, Solicitor)
Headnotes
Equal Status Act, 2000 - Direct Discrimination, Section 3(1)(a) - Membership of the Traveller Community, Section 3(2)(i) - Disposal of goods and supply of services, Section 5(1) - Refusal of service in a pub
Mr. and Ms. Conroy referred claims 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, the Director then delegated the case to me, Bernadette Treanor, 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.
Summary of the Complainant's case
The complainants' case is that, on 13/10/01, they entered Feerick's Bar at approximately 11.30pm. They could not have been there earlier since Ms Conroy finished work at 11pm. Ms Conroy submitted a note after the hearing from her employer confirming her late finish on the night. They ordered their drinks and went to join a group who were already there. One of the group was asleep but the rest were behaving normally. WhenMr. Conroy ordered another drink, the barman began to pour his pint but was stopped by Ms. Feerick's sister who said that they shouldn't have any more to drink. Mr. Conroy asked to speak to the manager who told them that they had caused trouble there before. They left quietly.
Summary of the Respondent's Case
The respondent's case is that the Conroys arrived around 9.30 pm and were there until around midnight. At that stage they were part of a group who were considered to be intoxicated and speaking too loudly. One of the group was asleep with his head resting on his chest. Because they were part of the group they were refused further service when the group was being refused. It is difficult to isolate members of a group for service while other members of the group are to be refused. The Manager denied speaking to the Conroys directly, and said that he spoke quietly to one other member of the group only. The respondent pointed out that while the Conroys were refused further service on that night, they are not barred.
Conclusions of the Equality Officer
At the outset, I must first consider whether the existence of a prima facie case has been established by the complainant. There are three key elements which need to be established to show that a prima facie case exists. These are:
(a) Applicability of the discriminatory ground (in this case the Traveller ground).
(b) Evidence of specific treatment of the complainant by the respondent.
(c) Evidence that the treatment received by the complainants was less favourable than the treatment a non-Traveller received, or would have received, in similar circumstances.
If and when those elements are established, the complainant has established a prima facie case and the burden of proof shifts, meaning that the difference in treatment is assumed to be discriminatory on the relevant ground. In such cases the claimant does not need to prove that there is a link between the difference and the membership of the ground, instead the respondent has to prove that there is not.
The respondent accepted that the complainants are members of the Traveller community. They also agree that there was a refusal of service. It was agreed that some members of the group that the Conroys joined were intoxicated, with one being so much so as to be asleep. The respondent disputed the time the Conroys arrived and all respondent witnesses were adamant that they arrived at around 9:30pm. The time has since been clarified by the note submitted by the complainants. I can understand the annoyance felt by the Conroys on finding themselves refused only thirty minutes after their arrival, and I do not accept the respondent's assertion that the Conroys were responsible for ensuring that those in their company who were intoxicated should leave.
In some cases, a proven contradiction of the evidence given by the witnesses might be seen as reducing the credibility of their evidence overall. In this case, however, there is agreement between the parties in relation to the central issues, in particular that the Conroys had joined a group who had been drinking for a while and who were at best exuberant and at worst asleep. This group was refused further service because of the behavior of its members. In respect of that I accept that to serve part of a group and not the remainder could present difficulties or unpleasantness for bar-staff in a busy pub with around 150 customers late in the evening. However, it appears to have been the lack of clarity as to the reason for the refusal that led the Conroy's to believe that the refusal was based on their membership of the Traveller community.
I find that the Conroys were refused because they were in the company of people who were intoxicated. A refusal in such circumstances is in accordance with Section 15(2) of the Equal Status Act, 2000. I am satisfied that the refusal was because of the level of intoxication of the group and I am also satisfied that non-Travellers would be similarly treated in similar circumstances, i.e. where a group of non-Travellers is to be refused, the entire group would be refused. Since I have not found that the refusal was because of their membership of the Traveller community, the Conroys have failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the Traveller ground.
Decision DEC-S2003-129-130
I find that the respondent did not discriminate against Mr. David Conroy and Mrs. Winnie Conroy on the grounds of their membership of the Traveller community.
Bernadette Treanor
Equality Officer
21 October 2003