Kathleen Connors, Francie McAleer, Mary & Miley Connors -v- The Castle Public House, Dublin
- Dispute
- This dispute concerns claims by Kathleen Connors, Francie McAleer, Mary Connors and Miley Connors that they were discriminated against by the respondent, contrary to the Equal Status Act, 2000, on the grounds that they are members of the Traveller community in that on 11 June, 2002, they were refused service in the premises. 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.
- This dispute concerns claims by Kathleen Connors, Francie McAleer, Mary Connors and Miley Connors that they were discriminated against by the respondent, contrary to the Equal Status Act, 2000, on the grounds that they are members of the Traveller community in that on 11 June, 2002, they were refused service in the premises. The respondent denies that discrimination occurred.
- Summary of Complainant’s Case.
- The complainants state that they went to The Castle pub on the afternoon of 11 June, 2002. They were refused service and given no reason for the refusal. It is the complainant’s belief that they were refused service because of their Traveller status.
- The complainants state that they went to The Castle pub on the afternoon of 11 June, 2002. They were refused service and given no reason for the refusal. It is the complainant’s belief that they were refused service because of their Traveller status.
- Summary of Respondent’s Case
- The respondent denies that discrimination occurred but accepts that the complainants may have been refused service as they state that they were, and he has no reason to disbelieve them. However, neither he nor any member of his staff has any recollection of any such refusal of service.
- The respondent denies that discrimination occurred but accepts that the complainants may have been refused service as they state that they were, and he has no reason to disbelieve them. However, neither he nor any member of his staff has any recollection of any such refusal of service.
- Background
- Complainants
The complainants state that they met up in Rathfarnham Village as prearranged on 11 June, 2002. They were going to watch the screening of an international soccer match featuring the Irish national team in a nearby public house (named). They were refused service in the pub in question and went to the respondent premises nearby. The ladies sat at a table while the men went to the bar to order drinks. The barman refused to serve them saying “not today lads”. No reason was given for the refusal. The barman in question then escorted the group to the door of the premises. The complainants submitted copy correspondence carried on between them and the first premises in which they were refused service to confirm that they were present in the location on the day in question.
None of the complainants questioned the refusal of service at that time as they were used to being refused service, particularly when pubs are busy e.g when soccer matches are being shown or when there is a festive occasion e.g St. Patrick’s Day. They saw no point in arguing on the day as they were anxious to see the football match and had very little time to find an alternative venue. In any event they expect such refusals before they set out on any given day and are aware that when they try to question or query such refusals the Gardaí will usually be sent for and told that they are causing a scene. Two of the complainants had each attended separately at the respondent premises on one occasion prior to the refusal of service to the group. They had each been served on that occasion.
All the complainants wish for is to be able to enter premises as any normal customer would and not constantly feel that they are going to be treated differently or refused service. The complainants left the respondent premises and made their way to other premises where they were served with no difficulty and remained there for the duration of the soccer match and into the evening. - Respondent
In written material submitted prior to the Hearing of these complaints the respondent stated that there were no refusals of service on the day in question as there were no entries in this regard in the incident book which is retained on the premises and updated at all times.
At the Hearing the respondent explained that all refusals of service that are potentially covered under the terms of the Equality Acts are carefully noted in the incident book. In written submissions the respondent stated that this was because of a refusal of service based on age previously which had become quite contentious. At the Hearing the respondent stated that this is because a patron of the premises was asked to leave on one occasion when he had become extremely argumentative and had repeatedly banged a bicycle helmet off the seats in the pub. The patron in question proceeded to lodge a formal complaint against the respondent for discrimination on one of the grounds (not the age ground) under the Act even though the reason for his being asked to leave had nothing to do with this. The respondent has exercised great caution thereafter in noting the reasons for all contentious refusals of service and the precise reasons for them.
The respondent does not take note of non-contentious incidents of refusal of service and can think of no reason for refusing service to the complainants on the day in question. He accepts, however, that they may have been refused, based on the fact that four of them are stating that they were refused service and he has no reason to believe that they are not being truthful. However, neither he nor his staff has any recollection of the refusal whatsoever and he is at a loss to understand why they would have been refused.
- Complainants
- Prima Facie Case
- 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:
- Applicability of a discriminatory ground (e.g. the Traveller ground)
- Evidence of specific treatment of the complainant by the respondent
- 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.
- 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 complainant 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.
- 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:
- Prima Facie Case - Complainant
- The complainants are Travellers and this is not disputed by the respondent. This fulfils (a) at 5.1 above. The complainants state that they were refused service in the respondent premises without any reason being offered. This fulfils (b) at 5.1 above. In relation to key element (c) above it is necessary to examine all evidence in these cases to determine whether this applies in the instant cases.
- The respondent accepts that, if the complainants were refused service and left quietly he would have no record of the refusal of service as a note is only kept of incidents involving contentious or potentially contentious matters or violent or unacceptable behaviour on the part of patrons in the premises.
- When the complainants attended at the respondent premises on the day in question they had no drink taken. They readily found seating in the premises and went to the bar to order a drink. They had not behaved in a manner that was unacceptable in any way and did not challenge or question the refusal of service strenuously, though they were entirely entitled to do so. They were then escorted to the door of the premises by the barman who had refused them service.
- The complainants went to other premises where they were served without difficulty and where they remained for the remainder of the day.
- The respondent premises were not overly crowded on the day in question. There was no clear or apparent reason to justify refusing the complainants service. Taking all of the evidence into consideration I am satisfied that the complainants were recognised as Travellers and were treated in a less favourable manner than non-Travellers would have been treated in the same circumstances.
- On balance I am satisfied that the complainants have established a prima facie case of discrimination which the respondent has failed to rebut.
- Decision
- I find that the complainants were discriminated against on the Traveller community ground contrary to Section 3(1) and 3(2)(i) of the Equal Status Act and in terms of Section 5(1) of that Act.
- I find that the complainants were discriminated against on the Traveller community ground contrary to Section 3(1) and 3(2)(i) of the Equal Status Act and in terms of Section 5(1) of that Act.
- Redress
- Under section 25(4) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 redress shall be ordered where a finding is in favour of the complainant in accordance with section 27. Section 27(1) provides that:
“the types of redress for which a decision of the Director under section 25 may provide are either or both of the following as may be appropriate in the circumstances:- (a) an order for compensation for the effects of the discrimination; or
- (b) an order that a person or persons specified in the order take a course of action which is so specified.”
- I hereby order that €500 be paid to each of the complainants by the respondent for the effects of the discrimination.
- Under section 25(4) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 redress shall be ordered where a finding is in favour of the complainant in accordance with section 27. Section 27(1) provides that: