The Equality Tribunal
3 Clonmel Street
Dublin 2.
Phone: 353 -1- 4774100
Fax: 353-1- 4774141
E-mail: info@equalitytribunal.ie
Website: www.equalitytribunal.ie
Equal Status Act 2000
EQUALITY OFFICER’S DECISIONS NOs: DEC-S2005-149-150
Michael & Ellen Reilly V Moran’s Central Bar, Dublin
File Nos. ES/2002/0330-0331
Date of Issue 04/10/2005
Equal Status Act 2000
Decisions DEC-S2005-149-150
Michael & Ellen Reilly V Moran’s Central Bar, Dublin
Headnotes
Equal Status Act, 2000 - Direct discrimination, Section 3(1)(a) - Traveller community ground, Section 3(2)(i) - Disposal of goods and supply of services, Section 5(1) - Refusal of service in a pub - Prima facie case.
1. Delegations
1.1 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 delegated the cases 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.
2 Summary of Complainant’s Case.
2.1 The complainants state 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 when they were refused service in the respondent’s premises on 5 March, 2002.
3. Summary of Respondent’s Case
3.1 The respondent denies that the complainants were discriminated against and that service was refused because it was felt that some members of the complainant’s group had sufficient drink taken.
5 Prima Facie Case
5.1 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:
(a) Membership of a discriminatory ground (e.g. the Traveller community ground)
(b) Evidence of specific treatment of the complainant by the respondent
(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, 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.
6. Prima Facie Case – Complainants
6.1 The complainants are members of the Traveller community and this is not disputed by the respondent. This satisfies (a) at 5.1 above. It is common case that the complainants were refused service in the respondent premises on 5 March 2002 and this satisfies (b) at 5.1 above.
6.2 In relation to key element (c) at 5.1 above I regard the following as the relevant facts in determining whether the complainants were treated in a manner which was less favourable than non-Travellers were, or would have been treated, in the same or similar circumstances:
§ The complainants were in the company of two other persons at the time of the refusal neither of whom attended at the Hearing of the instant complaints
§ One of the complainant’s companions and the barman in the respondent premises called the Gardaí to the scene following the refusal
§ The respondent called one of the attending Gardai to provide evidence at the Hearing of these complaints. The Garda, while not recalling the precise detail of everything that occurred or was said on the evening in question, did recall that he was satisfied that one member of the group smelled of alcohol. The Garda also stated that he was satisfied that no member of the group was intoxicated to the extent that he/she would pose a serious risk to themselves or to other members of the public.
§ The Garda reached his conclusion after speaking at length with members of the complainant’s group while the barman had to make a decision in a matter of seconds as to whether to serve or refuse the group.
§ The complainants produced no independent evidence or witnesses to support their complaints
6.4 In light of the above and having carefully considered all of the evidence presented in this matter I am satisfied that the barman refused service to the complainants on the basis that some of them had drink taken. I am not satisfied, on balance, that the complainants were treated less favourably than non-Travellers would be treated in the same or similar circumstances.
6.5 The complainants have therefore failed to satisfy key element (c) at 5.1 above and have therefore failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
7 Decision
7.1 I find that the complainants were not 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.
__________________________
Dolores Kavanagh
Equality Officer
4 October, 2005