Martin Kiely (Represented by Noonan Linehan Carroll Coffey Solicitors) V Marlboro Entertainment & Event Management
The complainant referred a claim to the Director of Equality Investigations (now the Equality Tribunal) on 20th June 2002. 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, 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 Act, 2000.
1. Dispute
1.1 The dispute concerns a claim by Mr. Martin Kiely that he was discriminated against by Marlboro Entertainment & Event Management on the ground that he is a member of the Traveller Community. He alleges that the respondent did not book a function room, as requested by him, for a party he was organising. The complainant alleges that the respondent discriminated against him in terms of Sections 3(1)(a), and 3(2)(i) of the Equal Status Acts, 2000-2004, contrary to Section 5(1) of that Act.
3 Summary of the Complainant’s Case
3.1 Mr. Martin Kiely stated that he is a business man and he decided to organise a party for his relatives and friends on 24th December 2001. He approached Marlboro Entertainment and Event Management where he spoke to Mr. Roy McCarthy. He gave Mr. McCarthy his requirements for a party on 24th December 2001. He said that he needed a venue to hold sixty to seventy people and he also required entertainment. A number of days later Mr. McCarthy contacted Mr. Kiely to say he had found a venue and he needed a deposit for the entertainment. Mr. Kiely said that he called to Mr. McCarthy with the deposit of £50 and while he was there Mr. McCarthy telephoned the Blackrock Inn to confirm the booking. Mr. McCarthy also booked a karaoke entertainer. Mr. Kiely said that he told Mr. McCarthy he did not need food at the party, as the Blackrock Inn was enquiring whether or not he needed food.
3.2 Mr. Kiely said that he understood that the Blackrock Inn was booked for the party. On 24th December Mr. Kiely said that when he arrived at the venue by bus with a number of his guests at about 9pm he was refused entry. He was informed that the booking had not been made. The karaoke entertainer had arrived and she was also informed that the party was not booked. Mr. Kiely said that he was very aggrieved and embarrassed because he had organised the party.
3.3 In response to the respondent’s claim, that the booking was not made by Mr. Roy McCarthy of Marlboro Entertainment , Mr. Kiely denied that Mr. McCarthy told him to contact the Blackrock Inn directly to discuss the party and to make the booking. He also denied that Mr. McCarthy gave him a contact name and the telephone number for the Blackrock Inn.
4 Summary of the Respondent’s Case
4.1 The respondent submitted that the complainant was not discriminated against on the Traveller community ground. Mr. Roy McCarthy of Marlborough Entertainment said that his company is an entertainment agency and organises bookings for a number of artists. He said that Mr. Kiely contacted him about organising a Christmas party around 6th December, 2001. He was looking for an entertainer and a venue for the party. Mr. McCarthy said that that he took the details and told Mr. McCarthy he would contact him again. He contacted a karaoke entertainer and asked her to keep the date free. Mr. McCarthy said that he does not normally book venues for functions but on this occasion he contacted a number of venues on behalf of Mr. Kiely. He telephoned the Blackrock Inn and spoke to Mr. Dave Canty who informed him that the function room was available on the night but his client would have to contact him directly about the details for the party. If the party required a full meal they would not accept a booking.
4.2 Mr McCarthy then contacted Mr. Kiely and he came into his office the following day with the deposit for the karaoke entertainer. Mr. Mc Carthy told Mr. Kiely that the Blackrock Inn was available for the party but he would have to contact the Blackrock Inn directly to make the arrangements. He wrote down Mr. Canty’s name and telephone number and gave it to Mr Kiely. He understood that Mr. Kiely would make the booking directly with the Blackrock Inn after he contacted them. Mr McCarthy confirmed the booking with the karaoke entertainer. Mr. McCarthy said that he had no further contact with either Mr. Kiely or the Blackrock Inn until the 24th of December when he was contacted by the karaoke entertainer and informed that there was no function in the Blackrock Inn.. Mr. McCarthy said that as far as he was concerned he only booked the entertainer and the booking of the function room was a matter to be sorted by Mr, Kiely directly with the Blackrock Inn. He only enquired about the availability of the function room and relayed the information he got from Mr. Canty to Mr. Kiely.
5. Conclusions of the Equality Officer
5.1 The matter referred for investigation turns upon whether or not the complainant was discriminated against contrary to Section 3(1)(a) and 3(2)(i) of the Equal Status Act and in terms of Section 5 (1) of that Act. In reaching my decision I have taken into account all the submissions, both oral and written, made to me by the parties in the course of my investigation into the complaint.
Section 3(1)(a) provides, inter alia, that discrimination shall be taken to occur where:
“On any of the grounds specified... (in this case the Traveller community ground).... A person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated. Section 3(2)(i) provides that: as between any two persons, thediscriminatory grounds ... are ...
that one is a member of the Traveller community and the other is not.”
5.2 A person making an allegation of discrimination under the Equal Status Act, 2000-2004 must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination treatment. Once a prima facie case of discrimination has been established by the complainants, the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent to rebut the presumption of discrimination.
5.3 I have identified the key issues to establish a prima facie case as follows:
(i) is the complainant covered by the discriminatory ground? (in this case is he a member of the Traveller community?)
(ii) was the complainant subjected to specific treatment?
(iii) is there evidence that the treatment received by the complainant was less favourable than the treatment someone, not covered by the discriminatory ground, would have received in similar circumstances?
5.4 I am now going to examine the issues I have identified above and consider whether the complainant has established a prima facie case.
5.5 Definition of Traveller
In the Equal Status Act, 2000 the Traveller community ground is defined as follows:
“means the community of people who are commonly called Travellers and who are identified (both by themselves and others ) as people with a share history, culture and traditions including, historically, a nomadic way of life on the island of Ireland”.
I am satisfied that the complainants are members of the Traveller community as defined by the Act. .
Having considered the evidence I am satisfied that the complainant was not subjected to any specific treatment by the respondent. Mr McCarthy, as requested by the complainant, sourced an entertainer and a venue for the party for him and both parties agreed on this evidence. However there is a dispute in relation to whether or not Mr. McCarthy actually booked the venue. The complainant believes the venue was booked and the respondent submitted that he told the complainant to contact the Blackrock Inn directly to follow up the enquiry about the venue he had made and to discuss the requirements for the night. Overall I found the evidence of Mr. McCarthy of Marlborough Entertainment most compelling and I have concluded that the Blackrock Inn function room was not booked by him for the complainant’s party. He merely made an enquiry about its availability and passed on the information to the complainant and told him to contact the Blackrock Inn himself. I believe that Mr. Kiely was mistaken in his belief that the function room was booked or alternatively he may have misunderstood the instructions given to him by Mr. McCarthy to contact the Blackrock Inn directly about the booking.
5.9 I am satisfied, therefore, that the complainant has not established that he was treated less favourably than non-Travellers would have been treated in a similar situation. I find, therefore, that he has failed to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment.
6. Decision
6.1 On the basis of the foregoing I find that Mr. Martin Kiely was not discriminated against by the respondent, Marlboro Entertainment ,on the Traveller community ground contrary to Section 3(1) and 3(2)(i) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 and in terms of Section 5(1) of that Act.
______________________
Marian Duffy
Equality Officer
8th July, 2005