Connie and Mary Delaney V The Galway Ryan Hotel, (represented by MacSweeney & Co., Solicitors)
1. Dispute
1.1 This dispute concerns a complaint by Connie and Mary Delaney that they were discriminated against, contrary to the Equal Status Act 2000, by the management of the Galway Ryan Hotel, Galway.
The complainants maintain that they were discriminated against on the Traveller community ground in terms of sections 3(1), 3(1)(b) and 3(2)(i) 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. Summary of the Complainant's Case
2.1 Connie and Mary Delaney claim that they were refused admission to the Galway Ryan Hotel on Saturday 19 October 2002 without sufficient reason. They believe that they were refused because they were recognised as members of the Traveller community.
3. Summary of Respondent's Case
3.1 The respondents denied that they discriminated against the complainants and state that, on the night in question, the Hotel bar was very full and that they had to restrict access to residents only from 9.30 pm onwards.
4 Delegation under the Equal Status Act, 2000
4.1 These complaints were 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 these complaints 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.
5.1 Evidence of Complainants
- On the evening of Saturday 19 October 2002, Mary Delaney said that she reminded her husband that it was her birthday that day. On being reminded of this, Connie Delaney suggested that they should go out for a meal and a drink.
- Mr Delaney then arranged for his sister to baby-sit and they left the house sometime after 8pm to drive to the Galway Ryan Hotel
- Mr Delaney said that he chose the Galway Ryan as he had been in there some months beforehand with two cousins of his. He said that, on that occasion, they had no problem getting served and he believes that the barstaff would have known they were Travellers.
- He also said that in 2002, a brother of his who is now deceased, used to drink regularly in the Galway Ryan Hotel with a group of non-Traveller friends.
- On 19 October 2002, the complainants arrived at the hotel around 8.30 pm. Mr Delaney went to the door first as Mrs Delaney was applying some makeup in the van.
- When he got to the door, Mr Jim Larkin was there and he told him that it was “residents only” .
- Mr Delaney recalls that he asked Mr Larkin whether he could check inside for friends but that Mr Larkin would not allow him.
- He went back to his van and told his wife what had happened.
- Mary Delaney herself says that she recalls her husband returning to the van and telling her that the “bar was full” and that the “boys are not there” which she took as a reference to his brother and friends
- At that point they both went back to the door and Mr Delaney recalls telling Mr Larkin that they only wanted to visit the restaurant. They were still refused.
- While they were at the door, Mr Larkin refused another man, a non-Traveller, for the same reason. When they were driving out of the hotel, they recall seeing the man standing at the main gate and they suspected that he was waiting for them to leave so that he could be let in by Jim Larkin. They do not know, however, whether he was let in later.
- The couple then decided to drive home and did not try to get in anywhere else.
5.2 Evidence of Respondents - Ms Siobhan Burke, General Manager
- The Galway Ryan has been in existence for 36 years and has a total of 96 guest rooms
- They usually have a good occupancy rate all year round. In October 2002, this was around 72% rising to between 80% and 90% at weekends
- The Hotel enjoys a good local custom in its bar during the week and at weekends. These customers have been regulars for years and live locally. They would number about 100 and usually would arrive in the bar before 9 pm on Saturday nights.
- The bar holds between 100 and 120 customers with a further 40/50 seats in the lounge area
- On most Saturday nights, the bar would be near full around 9.30 pm and the bar manager would usually decide at that stage to restrict any further access to residents only in order to cater for any guests who were still in the restaurant and would be coming to the bar later. Last orders in the restaurant are taken at 9 pm
- On such occasions, the hotel would put up a “residents only” sign on the door and tell the doorstaff to only admit guests after that. If there was a query as to whether someone was a guest, the guest list was available from Reception which was nearby.
- In the past, the Hotel has often had to refuse regular customers on such occasions. In support of this, a letter of complaint was produced at the Hearing from two regular customers who were annoyed over being refused on a Saturday night in November 2002.
- Many other similar complaints have been received by phone over the years
Evidence of Respondents - Jim Larkin Head Barman
- Mr Larkin has worked for the Hotel for many years
- It was his duty on busy nights to monitor crowd numbers and to decide, in consultation with the Manager on duty, at what time numbers should be restricted
- Numbers are restricted on most Saturday nights during the year as entertainment is provided which attracts large crowds from the locality
- The bar was particularly busy on 19 October 2002 as a very popular Ballad group were playing in the bar that night. The Hotel also had a high residency that night with 92 of the 96 hotel rooms taken up
- Mr Larkin recalls taking a decision at 9.30 pm to restrict numbers, in consultation with the Manager on duty
- Doorstaff were informed accordingly and the “residents only” sign went up at 9.40 pm
- Mr Larkin himself was at the door talking to the doorman when Mr Delaney arrived around 9.55 pm
- He informed Mr Delaney that it was “residents only” and recalls Mr Delaney asking whether he could check to see if his brother was inside. He let him go in and he emerged some minutes later saying he could not find him.
- Mr Delaney then went to his van and returned some minutes later with his wife saying that he wanted to go to the restaurant. Mr Larkin explained to them that the restaurant was now closed. They left after that.
- Mr Larkin said that he had never seen the Delaneys before prior to that night
- When asked about the other man who Mr Delaney said was refused, Mr Larkin said that it was probably a Mr A that he recalls. Mr Larkin said that Mr A was not allowed in later that evening, as suggested by Mr Delaney
6 Matters for Consideration
6.1 Section 3(1) of the Equal Status Act 2000 states that discrimination shall be taken to occur where, on any of the grounds specified in the Act, a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated. Section 3(2)(i) of the Act specifies the Traveller community ground as one of the grounds covered by the Act. Under Section 5(1) of the Act it is unlawful to discriminate against an individual in the provision of a service which is generally available to the public.
In this particular instance, the complainants claim that they were discriminated against on the grounds of their membership of the Traveller community contrary to Sections 3(1), 3(2)(i) and 5(1) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 in being refused service in the Galway Ryan Hotel on 19 October 2002.
6.2 In cases such as this, the burden of proof lies with the complainant who, in order to demonstrate that a prima facie case of discrimination exists, must establish facts from which it can be presumed that prohibited conduct has occurred. On establishment of these facts, the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent who, in order to successfully defend his case, must show that his actions were driven by factors which were non-discriminatory.
7 Conclusions of the Equality Officer
7.1 Prima facie case
At the outset, I must first consider whether the existence of a prima facie case has been established by the complainants.
There are three key elements which need to be established to show that a prima facie case exists. These are:
(a) Existence of a discriminatory ground (e.g. the Traveller community ground)
(b) Establishment of facts to show that specific treatment occurred
(c) Evidence that the treatment received by the complainant was less favourable than the treatment someone, not covered by that ground, would have received in 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 claimant does not need to prove that there is a link between the difference and the membership of the ground.
7.2 With regard to (a) above, the complainants have satisfied me that they are members of the Traveller community. In relation to (b), the respondents acknowledge that the complainants were refused admission on 19 October 2002. To determine whether a prima facie case exists, I must, therefore, consider whether the treatment afforded the complainants on 19 October 2002 was less favourable than the treatment a non-Traveller would have received, in similar circumstances.
7.3 As I have stated earlier, in cases such as this, the burden of proof lies with the complainant who, in order to demonstrate that a prima facie case of discrimination exists, must establish facts from which it can be presumed that prohibited conduct has occurred.
In considering whether discrimination occurred in this case, I note that Mr Delaney has stated that he was served previously in the hotel in the company of two of his cousins. He has also said that he had no trouble getting served that time despite the fact that it would have been obvious to barstaff that they were members of the Traveller community. This to me would lend some support to the view that the hotel did not operate a policy of discrimination against Travellers.
7.4 There is also some confusion over the timing of the incident. The complainants say that it was about 8.30 pm while Mr Larkin maintains that it was closer to 10 pm. On considering this point, I note that Mary Delaney recalls her husband telling her that the “bar was full” and that the “boys are not there”. This to me would appear to indicate that Connie Delaney did in fact gain access to the hotel bar for a few minutes, as Mr Larkin says, and would also support Mr Larkin’s evidence that the bar was actually full at the time he was admitted. Accordingly, I find that I am more inclined to accept Mr Larkin’s word that the incident happened close to 10 pm rather than at 8.30 pm as claimed by the complainants..
7.5 In considering the evidence of the respondents that they often have to restrict numbers on a Saturday night, I can understand why this might happen. From the evidence before me, it appears that the Galway Ryan Hotel is a very popular local spot and I can understand how a hotel close to local housing estates and providing free entertainment could attract a large volume of local custom on Saturday nights. I can also understand how such situations could create seating problems for the hotel’s own residents who may not be returning to the hotel until later in the evening.
7.6 Having deliberated fully on the totality of the evidence before me, I am prepared to accept that the Galway Ryan Hotel did encounter overcrowding problems on 19 October 2002 resulting in them having to restrict admission to residents after 9.30 pm. I have also arrived at the conclusion, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr and Mrs Delaney arrived at the hotel after the “residents only” decision had been taken and that this was the reason they were refused rather than the fact that they were recognised as members of the Traveller community.
Accordingly, I find that the complainants have not established a prima facie case of discrimination in relation to the alleged incident on 19 October 2002.
8 Decision
8.1 I find that the complainants have not established a prima facie case of discrimination on the Traveller community ground in terms of sections 3(1), and 3(2)(i) of the Equal Status Act 2000 in relation to the events of 19 October 2002. Accordingly, I find in favour of the respondents in the matter.
Brian O’Byrne
Equality Officer
17 May 2005