Nora Corcoran (represented by the Galway Travellers Support Group) V The Menlo Park Hotel (represented by V.P. Shields & Son)
1. Dispute
1.1 This dispute concerns a complaint by Nora Corcoran that she was discriminated against, contrary to the Equal Status Acts 2000-2004, by the Menlo Park Hotel, Galway on the Traveller community ground when she was refused service on 12 July 2002.
The complainant maintains that she was discriminated against in terms of sections 3(1) 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 The complainant states that herself, her mother and sister were refused service in the Hotel at 4.45 pm on 12 July 2002 by two female barstaff. She maintains that this occurred because they were recognised as members of the Traveller community.
3. Summary of Respondent's Case
3.1 The respondents totally reject that they operated a discriminatory policy against Travellers. They maintain that, on a number of previous occasions, the complainant had had an involvement in incidents of a troublesome or inappropriate nature involving her family and other members of the Traveller community.
4 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.
Evidence of Parties
The Menlo Park Hotel was opened in 1998.
The Manager, David Keane, stated that the hotel has many Traveller customers and has catered for a number of Traveller weddings in recent years.
Nora Corcoran has lived in Galway for 20 years and frequented the Menlo Park Hotel regularly since it opened until 2002.
Ms Corcoran says that staff would have known her as a Traveller but that she never had any problem getting served until 2002.
She would usually go to the hotel with her mother and sister. On occasion her mother might have too much to drink and would have to be helped from the hotel.
Ms Corcoran said that she recalled a night in 2002 when she was invited to a Traveller wedding. When she was leaving the hotel that night, she recalls a row going on outside between hotel staff and some of the wedding party. She herself had no personal involvement in the row and did not see the people who were directly involved in the altercation.
Because of what had happened she decided not to visit the hotel for a while as she thought she might be "picked on" for being there that night.
She says that she waited a few months before she next visited the hotel. She says she must have been refused service at that point as she was prompted to write a letter to the owner on 9 May 2002 stating that she had been "refused service and entry several times for reasons of which I am not sure" and asking to meet him.
She received a reply from the hotel indicating that the owner was not prepared to meet her until such time as she supplied details of the incidents concerned. She replied saying that she would prefer to provide details of the incidents and issues at a personal meeting. In response, she received a solicitors letter again requesting details of the incidents concerned. She did not reply to the solicitor's letter.
She said that the next time she went to the hotel with her mother and sister was on 12 July 2002 when they were refused by the two female barstaff. As a result of that refusal, she decided to lodge a complaint with the Equality Tribunal. She did not return to the hotel again until 2005.
Mr David Keane said that he recalled Ms Corcoran well and remembered that she, her mother and sister were regular visitors to the hotel for a number of years prior to 2002. Mr Keane said that he specifically recalled that the mother often had to be "linked" on her way home having had too much to drink. He believed that the fact that this occurred regularly gave other customers a poor impression of the hotel itself.
Mr Keane also recalled the night of 31 January 2002 when "serious fighting" broke out in the carpark involving Travellers who had attended a wedding in the hotel that evening. The Gardai had to be called to deal with the situation. As a result of that incident, the owner of the pub decided that the hotel should adopt a more cautious approach in the future towards Traveller functions.
Mr Keane recalls that Ms Corcoran was at the wedding on 31 January 2002 but accepts that she was not personally involved in any altercation.
Mr Keane also referred to another incident in March 2002 when Ms Corcoran and her family were in the hotel with some friends from England. On that occasion, Mr Keane said that younger children were present and staff reported that drink was being bought for them by adults in the group.
Mr Keane said that he believed that it was probably a combination of these two events, and the problems with Ms Corcoran's mother, that led to the owner deciding that Ms Corcoran and her family group should not be welcomed back to the hotel in the future.
Ms Corcoran did not return to the Menlo Park Hotel again until early this year (2005). While she was served on her return, both parties agree that fresh difficulties did arise on the two recent occasions she was on the premises.
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 complainant claims that she was discriminated against on the Traveller community ground contrary to Sections 3(1), 3(2)(i) and 5(1) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 in the treatment she received in being refused service by the hotel in 12 July 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 may 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 complainant.
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 complainant has satisfied me that she is a Traveller. In relation to (b), the respondent acknowledges that the complainant was refused service on 12 July 2002. To determine whether a prima facie case exists, I must, therefore, consider whether the treatment afforded the complainant was less favourable than the treatment a person not covered by the Traveller community ground would have received, in similar circumstances.
7.3 From the evidence before me, it would appear that, up until 2002, hotel staff knew Ms Corcoran to be a Traveller and they had no problem serving her. There is also agreement that the Hotel regularly hosted Traveller weddings and that Ms Corcoran had personally attended a number of these. These facts in themselves would appear to support the view that the Menlo Park Hotel was not a discriminating organisation.
In relation to the refusal of service on 12 July 2002, the evidence before me indicates that this was brought about by a number of incidents earlier that year. Firstly, Ms Corcoran was at a wedding in January 2002 where a disturbance occurred (although there is agreement that she was not personally involved) and, secondly, it also seems that she was subsequently part of a family group that supplied alcoholic drink to minors. The respondents say that it was these incidents and the incidents involving the complainant's mother, rather than the complainant's Traveller identity, that led to the hotel deciding in 2002 that Ms Corcoran and her family were no longer welcome in the hotel. Having considered these points, I find that I am prepared to accept, on the balance of probabilities, that this was in fact the case.
7.4 I, have, therefore, formed the opinion that the Menlo Park Hotel did not operate a policy of discrimination against Travellers in 2002 and that, in being refused service, the complainant was treated in the same way as a non-Traveller would have been treated in similar circumstances. Accordingly, I find that the complainant has 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 Acts 2000-2004.
8 Decision
8.1 I find that a prima facie case of discrimination has not been established by the complainant on the Traveller community ground in terms of sections 3(1) and 3(2)(i) of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2004. Accordingly, I find in favour of the respondents in the matter.
Brian O'Byrne
Equality Officer
19 September 2005