Ellen Delaney
(Represented by Peter O'Connor & Son Solicitors)
V
Liam Crotty T/AUlysses Café Bar, Waterford
(Represented by Hegarty & Co. Solicitors)
Ms Ellen Delaney 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, the Director then delegated the case to me, Bernadette Treanor, 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.
Summary of the Complainant's case
The complainant and four others went initially to the Pulpit Bar on 7th December 2002. They were advised by the doorman that there was a private function on there that evening and told to go to the Ulysses Café Bar instead. This they did and had three rounds without incident. Only two of the five in the group were drinking alcohol. When the complainant ordered she was told by the barman that the manager had instructed him not to serve them. The manager subsequently came down with two doormen/bouncers and said there was a private function on and asked them to leave. They asked if they could finish their drinks. The manager went away and came back with two Gardai who told them that the manager has said it looked like they were going to cause trouble. The complainant and her group asked for the name of the manager and when they got that they left and spent the remainder of the evening in another bar. Another group of people in a raised area of the bar were very loud and boisterous. The complainant pointed out that her group had been served until she ordered and that this was around the same time that the manager saw the group for the first time.
Summary of the Respondent's Case
The respondent was not present during the alleged incident. No witnesses to the incident were presented at hearing. He is satisfied that the manager handled it correctly based on the manager's experience. The complainant had been served in the Pulpit (same owner at the time) on several occasions and she was served as part of the group in the Ulysses. The respondent does not operate a discriminatory policy. There was no private function in the Ulysses that evening.
Conclusions of the Equality Officer
I am satisfied that the complainant is a member of the Traveller community. The allegation that she was refused service in the respondent premises is not disputed. What remains in dispute is the reason for that refusal. The respondent's staff proffered several reasons on the night of the incident:
- That the manager said they should not be served,
- That there was a private function on, and
- That the group looked like they would cause trouble.
The complainant stated that another group was louder and more boisterous than hers but they were not asked to leave. The respondent has been unable to present any evidence that the group was likely to cause trouble and there was no private function on that night. In the absence of an objective reason for the refusal I am satisfied that the complainants were asked to leave because of their membership of the Traveller community. I find that the complainants have established a prima facie case of discrimination on the Traveller ground.
The respondent produced neither witnesses nor evidence to rebut the prima facie case of discrimination and I find that they have failed to do so.
Decision DEC-S2006-091
I find that the complainant was discriminated against when she was refused service on 7th December 2002 in the respondent premises. I hereby order the respondent to pay the complainant €500 for the effects of the discrimination.
Bernadette Treanor
Equality Officer
11th December 2006