Martin & Margaret Mongan
V
Coachman's Public House, Co. Roscommon
(Ms. A Mina BL, acting on instructions from Martin J Neilan & Co. Solicitors)
Martin and Margaret Mongan 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
Mr. and Mrs. Mongan entered the Coachman's Pub at approximately 10pm on Christmas Eve 2002. They went in the main door and Mrs. Mongan sat down. Mr. Mongan went to the bar and ordered. The barman told him he was not going to serve them. When asked why the barman said "I'm just not serving you". Mr. Mongan told his wife what had happened and as there was no point in waiting they left. At the hearing the Mongans denied the allegations made by the witness for the respondent and stated that they did not leave home until 7pm and had not taken a drink at that point.
Summary of the Respondent's Case
When the Mongan's entered the Coachmans Mr. Doyle had adequate time to assess them. Based on the manner of Mr. Mongan's walk as he approached the bar and his speech Mr. Doyle formed the opinion that he was intoxicated. He told Mr. Mongan that he was not going to serve them and when asked why he said he would not give a reason. Mr. Mongan walked to his wife and after a few moments they left. The evidence presented by a witness for the respondent in another case was entered in relation to the instant case. The witness stated that, while working, he had seen the complainants drinking in another pub at around 4:30 on the afternoon of Christmas Eve 2002. He also stated that the complainants were in his own bar later when he came on duty at around 7:30. He formed the opinion that the complainants were intoxicated at that stage and when another drink was ordered he told them they had enough. After some heated comments the complainants left the witness's pub. The respondent suggests that as the complainants appeared intoxicated at 7:30 then they were intoxicated at 10pm after further drinks.
Conclusions of the Equality Officer
It was accepted that the complainants are members of the Traveller community and that they were refused service on 24/12/2002. The duration of the incident was very short. The complainants allege that the only reason for the refusal was their membership of the Traveller community. The respondent on the other hand states that his perception of the complainants was that they were intoxicated. He described in detail how he watched Mr. Mongan as he approached the bar and in particular how he had to avoid a stool. This is corroborated by the evidence of the witness who was clear that he had seen them drinking at around 4pm and that he had refused them service himself around 7:30 pm because in his opinion they already had enough. I am satisfied that the respondent decided that the complainants were intoxicated in good faith. He also stated in evidence that his policy is not to serve those he considers intoxicated as required by law. I am satisfied that where he considers non-Travellers intoxicated he would refuse them service also.
On the basis of the evidence presented the complainants have failed to satisfy me on the balance of probabilities that the reason for the refusal was their membership of the Traveller community. Therefore I find that they have failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the Traveller ground.
Decision DEC-S2006-008
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