Michael, Lisa, Hugh & Mary Nevin
(Represented by McGovern Solicitors)
V
The Goldsmith Inn, Co. Longford
(Represented by JJ Quinn Solicitors)
Michael, Lisa, Hugh and Mary Nevin each 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 complainants, who live in Longford, entered the respondent premises in Edgeworthstown just after 9:20pm on 22 February 2003. They had never been in the pub before. They left home around 8pm and had been in two other pubs, one in Longford and one in Edgeworthstown, without drinking anything before entering the Goldsmith Inn. When they entered Hugh Nevin went to the bar and ordered drinks. The barmaid told him that she only serves regulars. Mary Nevin then spoke to the barmaid and asked her name. The lady said she was Mary. The complainants felt that she was laughing at them along with the rest of the people in the bar. They felt that the refusal was because of their membership of the Traveller community.
Summary of the Respondent's Case
Ms. Keenan managed the bar on behalf of her father who was the licensee. She was busy that Saturday night when the complainants entered and was in the process of serving someone else. This meant she had time to observe them before she went to serve them. She noticed that the atmosphere in the bar had changed and that other customers were looking at the complainants and looking at her. The manageress noticed that the complainants were nicely dressed but very loud, all talking, slurring but very loud. Only two weeks before there had been an incident in the bar where two customers fell out and one had his jaw broken and another incident before that where a knife was drawn on the manageress. Neither of these incidents involved the complainants and she stated that while she had seen Michael Nevin once before, she had never seen the others. She had been given general advice to use caution, to observe those she did not know and not to serve people where she suspected drink had been taken or where she was concerned that there may be a disturbance of any kind. Her policy was to tell people being refused "regulars only" as to say anything further appears to aggravate the situation. Following the previous incidents she was wary of any situations developing. Having noted the change in atmosphere in the pub after the complainants entered, she finished serving the customer she was busy with and went to Michael Nevin. When he ordered she told him she was serving regulars only. After a moment Mary Nevin approached her and gave the same order as her husband, but the manageress stated that she had just told the gentleman it was regulars only. She was asked her name and she gave a false name, Mary, as she had personally been threatened previously by others. The complainants became a bit hostile but eventually they left. A Garda witness presented evidence on behalf of the respondent as to the incidents which had occurred in the pub and the town around this time.
Conclusions of the Equality Officer
In this case it was accepted that the complainants were members of the Traveller community and that they had been refused service as alleged. While there were some differences as to where people stood or sat the main area in dispute is the reason for the refusal. The complainants state that it was because of their membership of the Traveller community. The respondent stated that it was based on their behaviour and on the increased caution being used as a result of recent incidents.
This incident took place on 22/2/2003 and the complainants sent their notifications to the respondent premises on 26/2/2003. The manageress stated in evidence that she received the papers, passed them to her father and gave him an account of what had happened on 22/2/2003. I am satisfied that her recollection of the incident was good. She described her perception of the complainants very clearly and stated as an aside that she had not recognised them as Travellers. The matter to be decided is whether or not the complainants were treated less favourably than non-Travellers would have been in similar circumstances.
I am satisfied that, given the previous incidents, the manageress was entitled to proceed with caution while working alone. I am also satisfied, based on her evidence that this caution was used in respect of all customers, regardless of background. Therefore had a group of four non-Travellers unknown to the manageress entered the pub, behaved in a loud manner and seemed intoxicated, I am satisfied that they would have been refused. However, neither side presented corroborating evidence in respect of the behaviour of the complainants. On the basis of the evidence presented the complainants have failed to satisfy me, on the balance of probabilities, that the refusal was based on their membership of the Traveller community. Therefore I find that the complainants have failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the Traveller ground.
Decision DEC-S2006-006
I find that the complainants have failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the Traveller ground. Therefore this decision is in favour of the respondent.
Bernadette Treanor
Equality Officer
23rd February 2006