Martin Maughan & Theresa McDonagh (Represented by the Equality Authority) V Lucan Spa Hotel
Mr. Maughan and Ms. McDonagh 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, 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, through a third party, contacted the respondent hotel and provisionally
booked a room for their wedding reception. On calling back to confirm the booking and
make arrangements for paying the deposit, the complainants' representative was told that
the Hotel insisted on meeting all such customers in person. The complainants arrived at
12pm on 29/3/2001 for the meeting but the manager was not there but might be there
later. They waited but were greeted by the duty manager who told them that another booking had been made for their selected date. Ms. McDonagh sent a letter explaining what had occurred and requesting favourable consideration of the issue by the Hotel. Ultimately, their wedding reception was held in another venue. The complainants feel that the refusal to accept their booking was because they are members of the Traveller Community.
Summary of the Respondent's Case
Only the general manager can take bookings of any form for wedding receptions. The Hotel always insists on meeting the couple to ensure clarity in respect of their requirements. The respondent claims that the meeting with the complainants was scheduled for 3pm on 29/3/2001 and the complainants arrived three hours early. When the letter was received from Ms. McDonagh, the general manager considered it threatening, and decided not to accept a booking from the complainants.
Conclusions of the Equality Officer
Prima Facie Case
1. 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 complainant was less favourable than the treatment another person received, or would have received, in similar circumstances, where that person is not a member of the Traveller community. 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.
2. The respondent accepted that the complainants are members of the Traveller community, which satisfies (a) above. It is agreed that the respondent refused to accept a booking for the complainant's wedding, which satisfies (b) above. In respect of (c) it is necessary to assess whether the treatment received by the complainants was less favourable and if any such less favourable treatment was based on their membership of the Traveller community. On 23/3/01 the complainants were abroad. Ms. Ann Costelloe, acting on a request by Ms. McDonagh's parents approached the Lucan Spa Hotel on
23/3/2001 with a view to making a booking for a wedding for the complainants on 5th or 6th of June 2001. She spoke to a Ms. Curran who was most welcoming and who took a provisional booking for 5/6/01. When Ms. Costelloe called back to confirm the booking and to make arrangements to pay a deposit, she was transferred to Mr. Justin Parle, General Manager. He told her that he could not take a third party booking and that he would need to meet the couple. An appointment was arranged, the complainants state that this was for 12pm on 29/3/01 while the respondents state that the appointment was for 3pm on that date. When Ms. Costelloe arrived at the hotel at 12pm with the complainants they were told that Mr. Parle was not on duty and that he may be arriving later. They decided to wait. Mr. Riordan, duty manager, approached them and when they explained that they had provisionally booked a room for the 5/6/01, he checked the records and explained that another booking had been taken for that room on that date. On 5/4/01 the complainants faxed a letter to Mr. Parle. The letter is attached at appendix 1.
3. Having received the letter Mr. Parle stated that he felt the whole thing was more
trouble than it was worth, i.e.
a. that the initial booking had been made through a third party,
b. that they had failed to show up for the meeting and
c. then they had issued this letter which he found threatening.
On the basis of this Mr. Parle decided that he would not accept a booking from the complainants under any circumstances. It is worthy of note that Mr. Parle could not indicate a particular section or part of the letter that was threatening.
4. Ms. Costelloe alleges that a provisional booking was accepted and written into the Hotel's records by Ms. Curran. She stated that she was told by Mr. Parle that he would hold the date until the time of the meeting. Mr. Parle stated at the hearing that Ms. Costelloe had been told that they would try to hold the room. Mr. Parle also asserts that he made his decision not to accept the booking after receiving the letter from Ms. McDonagh. However, a decision had already been taken before that point since Mr. Riordan stated that another booking had been accepted for the 5/6/01. This means that the Hotel maintained that another booking had been accepted even though a note of the complainants' wedding had been taken, with contact details recorded in the diary, and an appointment made. The Hotel allegedly told the complainants subsequently that there were no dates available for the rest of the year. When asked to present their records to the Tribunal in respect of that year, the Hotel admitted that there had been no booking for 5/6/01, and indeed none for 6/6/01, and on looking at that date in their diary, the Equality
Officer could see the details recorded in respect of the complainants' provisional booking. Contact details for Ms. Costelloe were also visible, though covered. Therefore a decision had been taken to mislead the complainants in respect of a booking on 5/6/01 by the time the couple arrived at the hotel for the meeting on 29/3/2001.
5. Mr. Parle did not attempt to contact the complainants or Ms. Costelloe when the confusion as to the meeting time became apparent and it appears that he was not concerned to lose a wedding booking. I am satisfied that he had decided not to accept the booking from the complainants before the 12pm meeting time and well before the letter was received. I find the complainant's version of events surrounding the time of the meeting more compelling and I am satisfied that it had been scheduled for 12pm and that Mr. Parle had failed to appear. It is also worthy of note that he allegedly perceived the letter faxed to him as threatening, rather than seeing it as a complaint and a customer service issue.
6. The respondent misled the complainants by stating that a booking had been taken for their preferred date when in fact they had not, and then used a letter, dated subsequent to this misinformation, to justify their decision not to accept the booking. In the absence of a reasonable explanation for the refusal to accept a booking from or on behalf of the complainants, I am satisfied that an inference of discrimination arises and I find that the complainants have established a prima facie case of discrimination on the Traveller Ground.
Rebuttal
7. As recorded in point (3) above, having received the letter Mr. Parle stated that he felt the whole thing was more trouble than it was worth, i.e.
a. that the initial booking had been made through a third party,
b. that they had failed to show up for the meeting at 3pm and
c. then they had issued this letter which he found threatening.
On the basis of this Mr. Parle decided that he would not accept a booking from the complainants under any circumstances. On the basis of the evidence presented at the hearing, I am satisfied that:
- the respondent is willing to accept third party bookings on occasion.
- the complainants' version of events surrounding the time of the meeting is more
compelling, - the letter could not reasonably be perceived as threatening, and
- the decision not to accept the booking was made before receipt of the letter.
I find that the respondent has failed to rebut the prima facie case of discrimination.
Vicarious Liability
While Mr. Riordan and Mr. Parle were involved in the Hotel's failure to provide a service
in this case, S42 provides that anything done by a person in the course of their employment shall be treated as done also by that person's employer. I am satisfied that
the Lucan Spa Hotel is vicariously liable for the actions taken by these employees
Decision DEC-S2004-032-033
I find that the Lucan Spa Hotel discriminated against the complainants in 2001 while
they, directly and indirectly, attempted to make arrangements for their wedding.
Redress
I order the Lucan Spa Hotel to pay each of the complainants €2000 each for the affects of
the discrimination.
Bernadette Treanor
Equality Officer
12/3/2004