Headnotes
Equal Status Act, 2000 - Direct discrimination, section 3(1)(a) - Race ground, Section 3(2)(h) - Disposal of goods and supply of services, Section 5(1) - Refusal of entry to nightclub.
1. Dispute
1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by Christine Buckley that she was discriminated against by the respondent, contrary to the Equal Status Act, 2000, on the grounds of race in that she is a black person who was treated less favourably than non-black persons were treated when she attempted to gain entry to the respondent premises on the morning of 7 December 2002.
The complainant 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 then delegated the case 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. The Hearing of this complaint took place on Wednesday, 29 March 2006 in the Equality Tribunal.
2 Complainant's Case.
2.1 The complainant, an Irishwoman who is black, states that she went by taxi, accompanied by four others, to Joy's Niteclub circa 1.45 a.m. on 7 December, 2002. The group had been out celebrating the end of the college term and had decided to go to a nightclub. The taxi driver recommended that they go to "Joy's Niteclub". Two of the complainant's companions, Terence Cross and Ann Leonard, both white, were in the queue ahead of the complainant. The latter was queuing with a black male acquaintance named David. The last member of the group, Brian McGill, was standing behind the complainant and her companion. Both Mr. Cross and Ms. Leonard, who were ahead of the complainant, were admitted to the nightclub. The complainant and her companion, David, were asked by the bouncer at the club to stand aside. Mr. McGill, a white male, was being ushered in by the bouncer to the nightclub when he asked what the problem was in relation to admitting the complainant and David. He then went to stand beside the complainant. All persons subsequently admitted to the nightclub were white.
2.2 The complainant, David and Mr. McGill were rejoined by Mr. Cross and Ms. Leonard who had been admitted to the nightclub and who returned to see why the complainant and their other companions were still waiting outside. After some twenty minutes the group made enquiries as to why they were being detained outside as many people had gained entry in the meantime.
2.3 An English lecturer who was known to the group also gained admission to the nightclub. She re-emerged some time later and told the group that there were no black people whatsoever inside the nightclub.
2.4 The bouncer on duty told them that they were not "regulars" and that only regulars would be admitted. Mr. Cross pointed out that this was his first visit to the nightclub and he had been admitted. Ms. Leonard had not been to the nightclub in several years and she too had been admitted. Mr. McGill then spoke with a number of people in the queue and asked whether they were regular patrons of the nightclub. A group of Danish visitors and another group of Australian visitors stated that they had never before been to the nightclub. Both groups of visitors, who were all white, were subsequently admitted to the nightclub.
2.5 The complainant's companions protested verbally about the manner in which their two colleagues were being treated, as they now regarded the bouncer's actions as discriminatory and racist. Also by way of protest Mr. Cross sat down on the top step of a flight of steps leading down to the nightclub. The bouncer on duty then entered the nightclub and returned with another man who was in his mid to late fifties, red faced and with ginger hair, and a woman in her mid-fifties. The bouncer then went to physically remove Mr. Cross from the top step and in the scuffle that followed Mr. McGill's spectacles were broken and the complainant was physically pushed a number of times by the bouncer. This caused her pain and physical discomfort as she had recently undergone surgery for a serious condition.
2.6 Mr. Cross again went to sit on the top step leading to the nightclub entrance in protest at the way the complainant and David were being treated and the man who had emerged from the club with the bouncer made to hit Mr. Cross in the head. The complainant intervened and, fearing that matters were about to become violent or nasty, she rang a journalist colleague on her mobile telephone. She offered to allow the man from the nightclub to speak to the journalist. The man told the complainant, in very vulgar terms "what to do with herself".
2.7 The complainant states that she requested the man from the nightclub and the bouncer to ring the Gardaí on several occasions. They refused to do so.
2.8 At the Hearing of this complaint three witnesses on behalf of the complainant, who were part of the group who attended at the respondent premises with the complainant on 7 December 2002, verified the complainant's account of what had occurred on the night in question. The witnesses expressed their disgust at what had occurred and stated that they found it difficult to believe that "this type of discriminatory and barbaric behaviour" existed in this country.
2.9 The complainant stated that, at that time, she attended at college with her companions. While they were on very friendly terms she was not close/intimate friends with them and she was hurt, embarrassed, humiliated and very distressed at what had transpired while in their company. She feared that her companions would not wish to socialise with her again for fear that the same type of issue would arise. She had been distressed and upset for weeks following the incident and had, on a number of occasions, telephoned the nightclub to discuss the incident. On each occasion she was told by a staff member that somebody would "get back to her" but nobody returned her calls. The occasion had been ruined by the incident.
2.10 The complainant finds it extremely worrying and upsetting that the respondent has made no attempt to resolve this matter or show up at the Hearing of the complaint.
3. Respondent's Case
3.1 The respondent did not provide any written submissions to the Tribunal and, while informed in writing of the Hearing, did not attend at the scheduled Hearing of this complaint.
4 Conclusions of the Equality Officer.
4.1 The complainant and her companion on the night in question, David, are both black. They were both asked to stand aside while three white companions were admitted to the respondent nightclub, despite the fact that they were not "regulars" of the establishment. No credible explanation was given at the time, or since, by the respondent for the manner in which Ms. Buckley, the complainant, and her companion, David, were treated. The respondent's representative has carried out correspondence with the Tribunal about matters arising but has not made any attempt to address the complaint or attend at the scheduled Hearing of the complaint. On balance, taking account of the written and oral evidence of the complainant and the witnesses on her behalf, I am satisfied that the complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination on the grounds of race, because of her colour, which the respondent has failed to rebut.
5 Decision
5.1 I find that the complainant was discriminated against on the grounds of race in terms of Section 3(1) and 3(2) (h) of the Equal Status Act and contrary to Section 5(1) of that Act. Under Section 27 (1) (a) of the Equal Status Act I hereby order that the respondent pay the sum of €5,000 to the complainant for the effects of the discrimination.
Under Section 27 (1) (b) of the Equal Status Acts I further order (i) that the respondent display a sign, outside the respondent premises and in clear view of patrons, that "Joy's Niteclub" is a non-discriminatory premises and is fully compliant with the terms of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2004 (ii) that all existing and future staff of the respondent premises are formally trained in relation to the requirements of anti-discriminatory legislation, specifically the Equal Status Acts 2000-2004 and the Employment Equality Acts1998-2004 and (iii) that the respondent adopt a formal written policy in relation to the requirements of equality legislation, specifically the Equal Status Acts 2000-2004 and the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2004.
__________________________
Dolores Kavanagh
Equality Officer
13 April, 2006