Jacob Abiona(represented by McAleese & Co., Solicitors) V The Morrison Hotel, Dublin (represented by Wallis Solicitors)
1 Dispute
This dispute concerns a complaint by Jacob Abiona that he was discriminated against, contrary to the Equal Status Act 2000, by The Morrison Hotel, Dublin in being refused admission on 16 November 2002.
The complainant maintained that he was discriminated against on the race ground in terms of sections 3(1) and 3(2)(h) of the Equal Status Act 2000 in not being provided with a service which is generally available to the public contrary to Section 5(1) of the Act.
2 Delegation under the Equal Status Act, 2000
This complaint was referred 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 has delegated the complaint to myself, Brian O’Byrne, 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.
3 Background Note
The incident complained of occurred on 16 November 2002 and a complaint was submitted to the Equality Tribunal on behalf of the complainant by McAleese & Co., Solicitors in May 2003. In August 2004, the case was assigned to myself for investigation.
On 11 May 2005, the legal representatives of both parties were notified that the Hearing of the complaint would be held on Tuesday 21 June 2005 in the Equality Tribunal’s offices in Dublin.
On 21 June 2005, the Hearing was attended by the representatives of both parties. However, the complainant himself was not in attendance. At the Hearing, the complainant’s solicitor, Mr Tony Williams, explained that he had made every effort to contact the complainant – he had written to him at his last known address and had emailed him at his email address, notifying him of the Hearing date but had received no reply. He said that he had also made enquiries with acquaintances of the complainant who informed him that it was their understanding that the complainant was now living abroad.
On hearing this, I explained to the representatives that, in cases under the Equal Status Act, the onus was on the complainant to provide evidence establishing a prima facie case. I also indicated that it was essential, in the interests of natural justice and fair procedures, that such evidence is provided in the presence of the respondents to afford them the opportunity to challenge any allegations made against them.
I then explained that, in the absence of Mr Abiona to give evidence and allow the respondents to cross-examine him, it would be my opinion thatno prima facie case had been established and that a decision to this effect should issue.
At 11.00 am, I closed the Hearing stating that I proposed to issue a decision shortly on the lines set out above.
4 Decision
4.1 In complaints such as this, the onus is on the complainant to establish a prima facie case by appearing at the Hearing to give evidence. As the complainant in this case did not attend on 21 June 2005, and I am satisfied that every attempt was made to notify him of the Hearing date, I find that a prima facie case of discrimination has not been established on the race ground in terms of sections 3(1) and 3(2)(h) of the Equal Status Act 2000.
Accordingly, I find in favour of the respondents in the matter.
Brian O’Byrne
Equality Officer
30 June 2005