Noreen O'Brien (Represented by O'Keeffe, O'Shea and O'Connor) V Killarney Court Hotel
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 Acts 1998 and 2004 and under the Equal Status Acts 2000-2004, 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. The hearing of the complaints took place in Killarney on Friday 22nd July 2005.
1. Dispute
1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by Ms Noreen O'Brien that she was discriminated against on the grounds of her membership of the Traveller Community when she went to the Killarney Court Hotel to join friends for Lunch on 22nd September 2002. She alleges that the treatment she received was contrary to Section 3 (2) (i) of the Equal Status Act 2000 and that in not being provided with a service which is generally available to the public she was subjected to treatment that is contrary to Section 5 (1) of the Act.
2. Summary of the Complainant's Case
2.1 Ms Noreen O'Brien said that she is a Member of the Traveller community who lives in Killarney and that she went to the Killarney Court Hotel during lunch time with three lady friends on Sunday 22nd September 2002. It was the day of the All Ireland Football final. She said that all three arrived together by car. They parked and approached the main door where a man in a suit told them they would not be allowed in. She said that no reason was given to her for the refusal. She said they wanted to get a meal from the carvery in the hotel bar. Ms O'Brien said that she could see other people being allowed in to the premises without any problem. She said that the hotel was not too busy.
2.2 Ms O'Brien said that she went to the hotel from home and that she had not been drinking before going to the hotel. When asked, she said that two of those with her were also Travellers and the other was a non Traveller.
2.3 Ms O'Brien was asked if she knew of any trouble involving a group of people she was with in the Hotel about 8 weeks previously and she responded that she didn't know of any such incident. She said she had gone back to the hotel a number of times since the incident complained of and she said she had been stopped from entering 3-4 times this current year so far.
2.4 Ms O'Brien said that she believed that the only reason for her refusal was that she was a Member of the Traveller community.
3. Summary of the Respondent's Case
3.1 Mr. Derek Carroll said that he is the manager of the Killarney Court Hotel. He said that he was the person who refused the complainant on the day of the incident complained of. Mr Carroll said the hotel operates a carvery bar and that on a Sunday it is generally busy but not full as was the case on the Sunday in question. He said the venue attracts a range of customers including tourists as well as locals. He said that he knew the complainant as a customer but would not have considered her to be a regular customer. He said he knew her to be a member of the Traveller community.
3.2 Mr Carroll said that the complainant and her group were refused because of an incident on the premises in July of 2002 when the complainant was part of a group of 30-40 people in the bar, including a number of children who were running around the bar. He said that at that time the adults of the group were approached by staff and asked to control the children but none of them would admit to being with the children and jeered at the staff members telling them to "get a life". When asked if the complainant had made particular comments, Mr Carroll said that that he could not recall what the complainant had said on that occasion.
3.3 Mr Carroll said that he had refused the women at the door of the hotel on the 22nd September but he did not recall if he had provided them with a reason for the refusal. He said he was not aware of any other customers trying to enter the hotel during this time. He said that the hotel had a number of customers who were Travellers as it was located across the road from a halting site.
3.4 Mr Carroll had mentioned in a written submission to the Tribunal that the refusal of the complainant followed on from a incident at the hotel where the Gardaí were called to intervene in a potentially violent incident involving two groups of Travellers and where the he had been advised to close the hotel. It was put to him that the Garda record of this incident was that on arriving at the hotel there was no incident of violence and that a written statement from the local Gardaí was that no advice to close the premises was given. Mr. Carroll said that the incident referred to was the occasion where the children were running around and that he recalled being advised to close the bar.
3.5 Mr. Carroll said that Ms O'Brien was refused entry to the hotel for lunch on Sunday 22nd September because he recognised her as one of a group that had previously been disruptive in the hotel. Mr. Carroll said that there was no trouble from the women when they were refused on the 22nd and they merely returned to their car and went away.
4. Conclusions of the Equality Officer
4.1 First, I must assess whether the complainant has succeeded in establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. In order to do so the complainant must satisfy three criteria in relation to her complaint. She must (1) establish that he is covered by a discriminatory ground (in this case the Traveller Community 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 covered by the discriminatory ground would have received in similar circumstances.
4.2 In this case it is not a fact in dispute that the complainant is a member of the Traveller community, thus satisfying the first of the criteria outlined above. Furthermore it is not disputed that the complainant did not get served in the respondent hotel on 22nd September 2002. In addressing the third of the three criteria, that of less favourable treatment, the complainant has said that she was refused access to the hotel for lunch while others who were not members of the Traveller community were being served. The respondent has said that that he wasn't aware of other people being allowed in to the premises while the complainant was being refused but it would appear from the evidence that others who were not Travellers were served on that day. On this basis I accept that the complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination on the Traveller community ground. In circumstances where a prima facie case has been established by the complainant the burden of proof shifts to the respondent who must show that the refusal was for reasons other than for discriminatory reasons if the complaint is not to be upheld.
5. Rebuttal
5.1 The respondent's rebuttal of the complainants case rests on the assertion that the complainant was one of a large group of 30 - 40 people who were in the hotel about two months earlier with a number of children who were disorderly and that this group were unco-operative in bringing the children to order and jeered the staff when they were requested by the staff to intervene.
5.2 There was a suggestion that the presence of this particular large group on the hotel in July of 2002 could have precipitated a disorderly incident in the event of another group of travellers arriving but the statement submitted by the Gardaí does not provide any evidence of any such incident occurring on that date.
5.3 The circumstances of the complainant's presence with three other ladies at lunch time on the 22nd September 2002 presents a completely different set of circumstances to that when the large group were in the hotel in July. On this basis I do not consider that the respondent has rebutted the prima facie case of discrimination on the Traveller community ground established by the complainant Ms. Noreen O'Brien.
6. Decision and Redress
6.1 On the basis of the evidence presented by both parties I find that the complainant having established a prima facie case of discrimination on the Traveller community ground which the respondent has failed to rebut has succeeded in her complaint of discrimination against the Killarney Court Hotel (DEC-S2005 ) and I order that the respondent pay the complainant Ms. Noreen O'Brien €600 (six hundred Euro) as redress for the effects of the discrimination suffered when she sought entry to the hotel for lunch on Sunday 22nd September 2002.
Mary O'Callaghan
Equality Officer
September 2005