Martin Stokes (represented by Aoife Farrelly BL instructed by Regan McEntee Solicitors) -v- John Kiely Publican (represented by Malone and Martin Solicitors)
Decisions DEC-S2005-181
File Refs: ES/2003/0154
Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2004
Summary of Decision No. DEC-S-2005-181
Martin Stokes (represented by Aoife Farrelly BL instructed by Regan McEntee Solicitors) -v- John Kiely Publican (represented by Malone and Martin Solicitors)
Keywords
Equal Status Acts, 2000-2004 - Direct discrimination, Section 3(1)(a) - Traveller community ground, Section 3(2)(i)-Race Ground Section 3 (2) (h) - Disposal of goods and supply of services, Section 5(1) - Refusal of service - Prima facie case, Previous disorderly incident on premises
Dispute
This dispute concerns a claim by Martin Stokes that he was discriminated against on the grounds of his membership of the Traveller Community and Race when he was refused service in the John Kiely's Public House on 12th September 2002. The complainant has alleged that the treatment he received was contrary to Section 3 (2) (i) and (h) of the Equal Status Act 2000 and in not being provided with a service which is generally available to the public he was subjected to treatment contrary to Section 5 (1) of the Act.
Summary of the complainant's case
Mr Stokes said that he went to John Kiely's pub in Trim on his own on 12th September 2002. He approached the counter to order a drink and the respondent publican told him I am not serving you and would not give a reason for the refusal when requested to do so by the respondent. The complainant said he then left the pub. He believed that the refusal was due to his status as a member of the Traveller community.
Summary of the respondent's case
The respondent agreed that he had refused the complainant on the evening of the incident complained of but that the refusal was not related to his membership of the Traveller community but was because the complainant was barred from the premises due to his involvement in a previous disorderly incident on the premises, at the time he came into the pub that night.
Decision
The Equality Officer found that the complainant had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on both the Race and the Traveller community grounds and did not succeed in his complaint.
Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2004
Decision No. DEC-S-2005-181
Martin Stokes (represented by Aoife Farrelly BL instructed by Regan McEntee Solicitors) -v- John Kiely Publican (represented by Malone and Martin Solicitors)
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 me Mary O'Callaghan, 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, 2000-2004. The hearing was held on 9th November 2005.
1. Dispute
1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by Martin Stokes that he was discriminated against on the grounds of his membership of the Traveller Community and Race when he was refused service in the John Kiely's Public House on 12th September 2002. The complainant has alleged that the treatment he received was contrary to Section 3 (2) (i) and (h) of the Equal Status Act 2000 and in not being provided with a service which is generally available to the public he was subjected to treatment contrary to Section 5 (1) of the Act.
2. Summary of the Complainants Case
2.1 At about 8.p.m. on the evening of 12th September 2002 the complainant went on his own to John Kiely's pub. He had not been there for over a year as the last time he had been drinking in the pub a violent incident had broken out and the publican had barred a large number of people, including the complainant, who he considered to have been involved in this incident. He had returned to the pub a few days after this incident in order to offer an apology to the publican, although he maintained that he was not in fact involved in the violence. He said he had apologised because although he had not committed any violent act, he was embarrassed by what had occurred and he wanted to know if he would be served in the pub again.
2.2 Mr. Stokes said that he decided to revisit Kiely's as court proceedings which arose consequent on the May 2001 incident had concluded, resulting in the conviction of two other customers. Mr. Stokes said that he had not been charged in relation to that incident and he now felt that the publican would have been aware of this following the court case and would discontinue the barring against him. When he approached the counter to order a drink he was told he would not be served and when he sought a reason for the refusal he was refused one. He said he then turned around and left the pub. Mr. Stokes said that the only explanation he could think of for the refusal was his Traveller status as the District Court proceedings would have made it clear to the respondent that he was not the cause of the violent incident.
3. Summary of the Respondent's case
3.1 The respondent agreed that he refused the complainant, who he knows to be a Traveller, service on the 12th September 2002. He said the refusal was not for discriminatory reasons but because the complainant was part of a large group of people who became embroiled in a violent disorderly incident in the pub on the 26th May 2001 when two women set upon a group of 7-8 men including the complainant and a melee broke out. The respondent said that this was the only serious incident ever to have occurred in his premises and the incident resulted in three people, including the complainant, having to be removed to hospital by ambulance and left the pub seriously damaged to the extent that glass had been broken and was embedded in the wall and limbs had been removed from some of the pub furniture.
3.2 He said that about two days following the incident the complainant had come into the pub and apologised for what had happened and at that time he was told he was barred. The respondent said that he took the decision following the incident to bar all of those who had became involved in the incident and said that if the complainant were to come on to his premises today he would still be refused service because of that.
3.3 The respondent's mother gave evidence that she had worked in the pub up to the incident in May 2001 but since then had not done so because of the incident.
4. Garda Evidence
4.1 Garda Jennifer Donovan of Trim Garda Station said herself and a colleague had been called to the incident at Kiely's pub on 26th May 2001. She said that in her opinion the incident was serious and that when she and her colleague arrived at the pub, most of the patrons were outside the pub and only a few people including the injured and the respondent remained inside. It was the Gardai who summoned the ambulance to the scene, when three people one of whom was the complainant, were seen to be bleeding. She understood that the incident occurred when two women from a table alongside the table where the complainant's group were sitting set upon the men at the complainants table and people started breaking glass and furniture and a fight ensued. She said that this was the only incident of this nature that she knew of to have occurred in Kiely's pub during her time in Trim.
5. Conclusions of the Equality Officer
5.1 I must assess whether the complainant has succeeded in establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. In order to do so he must satisfy three criteria in relation to his complaint. He must (1) establish that he is covered by the discriminatory grounds (in this case the Traveller community ground and the race ground); (2) it must be established that the specific treatment alleged by the complainant actually occurred and (3) there must be evidence that the treatment received by the complainant was less favourable than the treatment someone who was not a member Traveller community or of a different race would have received in similar circumstances.
5.2 On the basis of the evidence I have concluded that the complaint of discrimination on the race ground is not upheld as the complainant's allegation of discriminatory treatment by the respondent rests on his belief that this occurred because he is a Member of the Traveller community. On this basis I am proceeding to consider the complaint on the Traveller community ground and with regard to the first of the criteria above it is agreed by both parties to the complaint that Martin Stokes is a Traveller. It is also agreed that that he was refused by the respondent publican on 12th September 2002 when he approached the pub counter to order a drink.
5.3 With regard to the third of the three criteria i.e., whether the treatment received by the complainant was less favourable than the treatment someone who was not a member of the Traveller community would have received in similar circumstances, I have concluded from the evidence provided by both parties to the complaint that the incident in Kiely's pub on 26th May 2001 was sufficiently serious to warrant the barring of all of those with any involvement in what occurred on that occasion. The fact that the complainant has submitted an apology to the respondent following that incident suggests to me that he had some involvement in what happened that night and that it was the barring of the complainant arising from that incident which prompted the respondent of refuse the complainant on 12th September 2002, when he returned to the pub and not his Traveller status. This in my view was not less favourable treatment.
6. Decision
6.1 On the basis of my conclusions above, I have decided (DEC-S2005-181) that Martin Stokes has not established a prima facie case of discrimination and that his complaint is not upheld.
Mary O'Callaghan
Equality Officer
25th November 2005