Mr. Arthur McCarthy (Represented by Traveller Visibility Group) V The Bridge Inn, Cork
(Represented by J.W. O'Donovon Solicitors)
Mr. McCarthy referred a claim to the Director of Equality Investigations under the Equal Status Act 2000 alleging that he was discriminated against by the Bridge Inn on the grounds of his membership of the Traveller community. 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.
2. Summary of the Complainant's case
Mr. McCarthy stated that he entered the respondent premises with two friends on 26/2/02 at around 3-4pm. The complainant was never in the pub before. He ordered three pints and was told "Regulars only". When he asked for a reason none was given and the 'regulars only' comment was repeated. Mr. McCarthy feels that this refusal was based on his membership of the Traveller community.
3. Summary of the Respondent's Case
The respondent accepted that the complainant was in the pub on 26/2/2002. Three gentlemen entered with a child of about three or four years of age. The owner observed them for one to two minutes. The complainant went to the bar, the second gentleman sat with the child and the third stood in front of the door. The owner went behind the bar and
refused the order as he had observed the gentlemen and felt that they had previously been drinking.
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 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.
4.2. I am satisfied that the complainant is a member of the Traveller community, which satisfies 4.1.(a). It is agreed that there was a refusal of service on 26/2/2002 which satisfies 4.1.(b). Mr. McCarthy was refused service, which is less favourable treatment. He stated that there was no explanation for the refusal other than his membership of the Traveller community, as he and his friends had not been drinking before entering the pub. The friends that were with Mr. McCarthy on the date of the incident were not present at the Hearing to support Mr. McCarthy's contention that they had not been drinking. Alternatively, the owner of the pub stated that he had adequate time to observe the complainant's group and that based on his years of experience he decided that the group had been drinking before entering the pub.
4.3. During the Hearing, it became clear that the respondent keeps records of adverse behaviour in the locality in the form of press cuttings. While only 1% of the pub's customer base is made up of Travellers, approximately 25% of the cuttings relate to Travellers. It also became clear that the respondent had received correspondence that he had initially indicated had not been received.
4.4. In addition, there were issues surrounding the receipt of correspondence by the respondent from the complainant and from the Tribunal. It became clear that although the respondent stated that the correspondence had not been received, some of the information that was explicitly contradicted in the respondent's response to the notification from the complainant could only have been known had the correspondence from the complainant been received.
4.5. Having considered these issues I am not satisfied that they indicate that the respondent has an ongoing policy of discrimination against members of the Traveller community. Neither am I satisfied that the complainant has established, on the balance of probabilities, that the reason he was refused service was his membership of the Traveller community and therefore he has failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 4.1.(c) above.
4.6. I find that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the Traveller ground.
Decision DEC-S2004-161
I find that the complainant, Mr. Arthur McCarthy has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the Traveller ground in respect of the incident where he was refused service in the respondent premises on 26/2/02.
Bernadette Treanor
Equality Officer
5th November 2004