Terry Maughan V Keane's Spar Supermarket, Claremorris
1. Dispute
1.1 This dispute concerns a complaint by Terry Maughan that he was discriminated against, contrary to the Equal Status Act 2000, by Keane's Spar Supermarket, Claremorris on 6 June 2002. The complainant maintained that he was discriminated against on the Traveller community ground in terms of sections 3(1) and 3(2)(i) of the Equal Status Act 2000.
This dispute concerns a complaint by Terry Maughan that he was wrongly accused of attempting to remove goods from Keane's Supermarket without paying on 6 June 2002. In submitting his complaint, Mr Maughan maintained that the reason this occurred was because he was recognised as a member of the Traveller community.
The respondents totally reject that they operate a discriminatory policy against Travellers. They maintained that the complainant was challenged because a staff member suspected him of shoplifting.
2 Delegation under the Equal Status Act, 2000
4.1 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 Hearing of this complaint was initially scheduled for Tuesday 5 July 2005. However, because the respondent had ceased trading in Claremorris in the intervening period, the notification of the Hearing did not reach him in time and the Hearing had to be postponed. I subsequently contacted both parties to agree an alternative date.
Following discussions by phone with the parties, it was agreed that the Hearing would proceed at 10 am on Wednesday 3 August 2005. As neither party was no longer living in Claremorris, I decided to hold the Hearing in Flannery's Hotel, Galway to facilitate the complainant who was now resident in Galway. Written confirmation of the Hearing date was also sent to both parties by registered post and An Post's records confirm that the complainant's notification was delivered on 5 July 2005.
At 10.00 am on Wednesday 3 August 2005, the respondent arrived for the Hearing with his witnesses, as arranged. As there was no sign of the complainant, I indicated that I would defer commencement of the Hearing for 45 minutes in case he had been delayed.
When the complainant had not appeared by 10.45 am, I convened the Hearing as I was satisfied that the complainant had been made fully aware of the Hearing date.
At the Hearing, I explained that, in cases under the Equal Status Act, the onus was on the complainant to provide evidence establishing a prima facie case and 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 also explained that, in the absence of Terry Maughan to give evidence and allow the respondents to cross-examine him, it would be my opinion that no 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 of the 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 3 August 2005, and I am satisfied that he was formally notified of the Hearing date, I find that a prima facie case has not been established on the Traveller community ground in terms of sections 3(1) and 3(2)(i) of the Equal Status Act 2000. Accordingly, I find in favour of the respondent in the matter.
Since the Hearing, no explanation has been offered for the complainant's non-attendance at the Hearing. In view of the fact that the Hearing venue was chosen to facilitate him and that both the Equality Officer and the respondents were required to travel long distances to attend the Hearing, I consider it extremely discourteous of the complainant not to have alerted me beforehand of his non-attendance or to offer an explanation subsequently if a last minute difficulty led to his non-attendance on 3 August 2005.
Brian O'Byrne
Equality Officer
19 September 2005