Ms. Bridget Kelly V Whitehouse Bar (Enniscorthy) (Represented by O'Doherty Warren & Associates, Solicitors)
Summary of Decision DEC-S2005-203
Ms. Bridget Kelly V Whitehouse Bar (Enniscorthy) (Represented by O'Doherty Warren & Associates, Solicitors)
Key words
Equal Status Act, 2000 - Direct discrimination, section 3(1) - Traveller community,
Section 3(2)(i) - age, Section 3(2)(f) - supply of goods and services, Section 5(1) - access to a pub, Section 21(2)(a) - date of refusal -compliance with procedure for notification of complaint.
Dispute
The complainant claimed that she was discriminated against by the respondent on the ground that she is a member of the Traveller Community in that she was refused a service which is generally available to the public. The complainant alleges that the respondent discriminated against her in terms of Sections 3(1)(a), and 3(2)(i) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 contrary to Section 5(1) of that Act.
Summary of Case
The complainant's case is that she was refused service in the public bar of the respondent's premises on 13th January 2002 and she believes this occurred because she is a member of the Traveller community.
The respondent's case is that the complainant was barred from the pub. He further submitted that that the refusal of service occurred on 14th January 2001 and not on 13th January 2002 as stated by the complainant and that he was not notified of the complaint within the statutory 2 months period.
Conclusions of Equality Officer
The Equality Officer found that the alleged discrimination occurred on 14th January 2001 and that the notification of the complaint to the respondent under the Act was not within the statutory 2 month period as required by Section 21(2)(a) of the Act. She dismissed the complaint as the referral did not comply with the statutory requirements.
Equality Officer Decision
DEC-S2005-203
Ms. Bridget Kelly V Whitehouse Bar (Enniscorthy) (Represented by O'Doherty Warren & Associates, Solicitors)
Delegation under Equal Status Acts, 2000-2004
The complainant referred a claim to the Director of Equality Investigations (now the Equality Tribunal) on 27th February, 2002 under the Equal Status Act, 2000. In accordance with her powers under section 75 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 under the Equal Status Act, 2000 the Director then delegated the case to me, Marian Duffy, 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 Acts 2000.
1. Dispute
1.1 The dispute concerns a claim by Ms. Bridget Kelly that she was discriminated against by the Whitehouse Bar on the ground that she is a member of the Traveller Community in that she was refused a service which is generally available to the public. The complainant alleges that the respondent discriminated against her in terms of Sections 3(1)(a), and 3(2)(i) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 contrary to Section 5(1) of that Act.
2. Summary of the Case
2.1 The complainant's case is that she was refused service in the public bar of the respondent's premises on 13th January 2002. She said that she went there with her daughter and her niece and she was refused service.
2.2 The respondent's case is that the complainant who was in the company of her husband was barred from the pub in November 2000. The respondent submitted that the refusal of service occurred on 14th January 2001 and not on 13th January 2002 as stated by the complainant and in support of this contention Mr. Peter Freeman owner of the pub produced a diary which recorded that the complainant and two women were refused service.
3. Conclusions of the Equality Officer
3.1 The first matter which I have to decide is whether the refusal of service took place on 13th January 2002 or on 14th January 2001. Mrs. Bridget Kelly notified the respondent of her complaint as required under the Act and stated in that notification that she was refused service on 13th January 2002 and in her referral of the complaint to the Tribunal stated that the alleged act of discrimination occurred on 13th January 2002. In response to questions from me during the course of the hearing Mrs. Kelly stated that she went to the respondent's premises on Christmas Eve and was refused service by Mrs Mary Freeman.
3.2 As the respondent disputed the date of the alleged incident and produced a diary in evidence to substantiate his claim that the incident occurred on 14th January 2001, I accept that his evidence was more reliable than the contradictory evidence given by the complainant. In the circumstances I find that the alleged discrimination occurred on 14th January 2001 and that the notification of the complaint to the respondent under the Act was not within the statutory 2 month period as required by Section 21(2)(a) of the Act. I am dismissing the complaint as the referral did not comply with the statutory requirements.
Marian Duffy
Equality Officer
20th December, 2005