Gerry Goggins, Larry Goggins & James Cash (Represented by Aherne, Swift, Solicitors) V Vinedale Ltd., t/a Hotel New Ross, Wexford
Headnotes
Equal Status Act, 2000 - Direct discrimination, Section 3(1)(a) - Traveller community ground, Section 3(2)(i) - Disposal of goods and supply of services, Section 5(1) - Refusal of admission to a hotel bar - Prima facie case.
1. Dispute
1.1 This dispute concerns claims by Gerry Goggins, Larry Goggins and James Cash that on 23 December, 2001, they were denied service in the respondent premises on the grounds that they are members of the Traveller community. The respondent denies that discrimination occurred. The complainants each referred a claim 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 then delegated the case to me, Dolores Kavanagh, 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.
2. Summary of Complainants' Case
2.1 The complainants state that they were refused service by a member of the respondent's staff on 23 December, 2001 when they sought admittance to the respondent premises and were refused entry and were told the refusal was because they are members of the Traveller community.
3. Summary of Respondent's Case
3.1 The respondent states that one of the complainants, Gerry Goggins, had been refused admittance to the respondent premises on the date in question because he was inappropriately dressed in work clothes. The manager of the respondent premises does not recall the other two complainants having attended at the premises on the date in question. In refusing Gerry Goggins entry the doorman simply said "sorry". No reference was made at any time to Gerry Goggins membership of the Traveller community.
4 Prima Facie Case
4.1. At the outset, I must first consider whether the existence of a prima facie case has been established by the complainants. There are three key elements which need to be established to show that a prima facie case exists. These are:
(a) Membership of a discriminatory ground (e.g. the Traveller community 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 someone, not covered by that ground, would have received in the same, or similar circumstances.
4.2 If and when those elements are established, 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. If they succeed in establishing prima facie evidence, the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination.
5 Prima Facie Case - Complainants
5.1 The complainants are Travellers and this is not disputed by the respondent. This fulfils (a) at 4.1 above. Both parties agree that Gerry Goggins, the complainant was refused service on 23 December, 2001. This fulfils (b) at 4.1 above in relation to Mr. Gerry Goggins. In relation to the other two complainants the manager of the respondent premises states that he does "not recall" their presence on the night in question. The complainants state that they were attending at the respondent premises to celebrate the recent engagement of James Cash to a member of the Goggins family. On balance, having considered all of the evidence presented in this matter, I am satisfied that the remaining two complainants accompanied Mr. Gerry Goggins to the respondent premises on the night in question. However, it is unclear from the oral evidence provided by Larry Goggins or James Cash, that they were directly refused entry to the premises. On balance therefore I am not satisfied that they were refused entry to the respondent premises. Neither Mr. Larry Goggins nor Mr. James Cash has therefore established a prima facie case of discrimination on the Traveller community ground. In relation to key element (c) above with regard to Mr. Gerry Goggins complaint it is necessary to examine all of the evidence to determine whether it is applicable.
5.2 The complainants, who have each live in the area in close proximity to the respondent premises state that they had never been there before. They chose it on this occasion "for a change". When asked by the respondent to verify that she was well known in the Traveller community because she freely admitted Travellers to the premises, the complainant's only reply was that they had not been to the premises before, with the exception of Mr. Cash who had been there once or twice several years ago, when the premises was under different ownership. The respondent stated that in excess of thirty percent of her entire business had come from the Traveller community when the Hotel was open (the Hotel is no longer in operation). She had in fact, been very friendly with several patrons from the Traveller community and had sometimes driven them home when the premises closed at night. This was verified by a witness on her behalf.
5.3 A petition which had been signed by in excess of twenty members of the Traveller community had been submitted by the respondent, attesting to the fact that they had frequented the premises and had never experienced any difficulties. As none of the signatories to the petition were present at the Hearing to verify their signature or to confirm the contents of the petition, the petition itself holds little value in the way of direct evidence. However, the respondent detailed how the petition was started by two members of the Traveller community (named) and was signed by each of the signatories inside the respondent premises. The complainants challenged the basis on which the petition was signed by each of the signatories, stating that they had no idea what they were signing. Furthermore, the complainants did not produce any witnesses to challenge the petition, despite the fact that all of the signatories are purported to be members of the local Traveller community. The complainants confirmed that they had spoken with one of the signatories (named), a member of the Traveller community, who had informed them that he had put his signature to the petition but had had no idea what the petition contained. Mr. Gerry Goggins stated that one of the signatories is his sister in law, also a member of the Traveller community. The fact that the petition was signed inside the respondent premises was not challenged or refuted in any way by the complainants. While the complainants did not produce any witnesses to challenge the petition, the statements made by the complainants confirm, in fact, that several of the signatories are members of the Traveller community. In short, the petition of itself proves little except that a large number of Travellers were present inside the respondent premises on the evening on which it was signed. In the circumstances, given the clear indications that the respondent premises admitted large numbers of Travellers to the premises I am not satisfied that it is simply the Traveller status of the complainant, Gerry Goggins, that was the basis of the refusal to admit him. The complainant did not adduce any independent, corroborative evidence to show why, on the specific occasion of the refusal of service to him on 23 December, 2001 it was his membership of the Traveller community that was the basis for the refusal. I find the respondent's evidence in relation to the inappropriate dress of Mr. Goggins more compelling. Mr. Gerry Goggins has, therefore, failed to show that he was treated in a less favourable manner than non-Travellers would have been in the same or similar circumstances. He has not fulfilled (c) at 4(1)above and has failed, therefore, to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the Traveller community ground.
6 Decision
Having considered all of the evidence provided in this matter I am satisfied that the complainants have not established a prima facie case of discrimination on the Traveller community ground. I find therefore that the complainants were not discriminated against on the Traveller community ground contrary to Section 3(1)(a), and 3(2)(i) of the Equal Status Act 2000 and in terms of Section 5(1) of that Act.
______________________________
Dolores Kavanagh
Equality Officer
6 August, 2004