Patrick Myers
- v-
Bambrick's Public House
Keywords
Equal Status Acts, 2000-2004 - Direct discrimination, Section 3(1)(a) - Traveller community ground, Section 3(2)(i) - Disposal of goods and supply of services, Section 5(1) - Refusal of service, Establishment of Prima facie case
Delegation under the Equal Status Act 2000
This complaint was referred to the Director of the 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 me Mary O'Callaghan, 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 2000-2004. The hearing of the case took place in Mullingar on Tuesday 7th February, 2006.
1. Dispute
1.1 The complainant alleges that he was subjected to discriminatory treatment when he sought service in Bambrick's Public House in Mullingar during the afternoon of December 28th 2002 and was refused. He maintains that the treatment he received was contrary to Section 3 (2) (i) and (j) of the Equal Status Act 2000 and contrary to Section 5(i) of the Act i.e. that he was refused access to goods and services because of his membership of the Traveller community.
1.2 The respondent who did not attend the hearing of the case stated in a written response to the complainant that he was "personally working on the day in question and does not recall any dealings with you."
2. Summary of the Complainant's Evidence at the Hearing
2.1 The complainant Patrick Myers said that he is from Mullingar. Mr. Myers said that he went to Bambrick's Public House on the afternoon of 28th December 2002 and ordered a soft drink. He said that he had been a regular customer in the pub when it was under different management. He was refused service by the bar man.
2.2 He said that two days previously he had gone to the same pub and while he was initially refused by the bar man (named), Mr. Myers said that he was served that night having spoken to the owner manager. He was told he could stay that night but he would not be welcome in the pub after that. He said that when he returned to Bambrick's on 28th December he placed his order with the same bar man who told him "I told you not to come back any more." When he asked for the manager he was told by the bar man that the Mr. Smith (the licensee/manager) did not want him there. Mr. Myers said that he then asked the bar man "is this because of who I am?" and that the bar man responded "you can take what you like from it you are not welcome". The complainant said that this entire encounter took about 10 minutes and while he was in the pub he witnessed other customers none of whom were Travellers being served.
2.3 On being asked at the hearing if he did speak to the manager, the complainant said that he did not see the manager Mr. Smith on the premises on the 28th December 2002.
2.4 Mr. Myers said that about one month later he returned to Bambrick's where he met Mr. Smith the owner/manager who told him he wasn't welcome. Mr. Myers said he asked Mr. Smith had he (Mr. Myers) ever done anything to him. And Mr Smith said "no, you are not welcome and you have made a complaint against me as well." Mr. Myers said that this was a reference to the complaint under investigation herein. When Mr. Myers asked Mr. Smith what he expected him to do he said that he was told "you can drop them and we can sort things out". Mr Myers said he was refused entry and he told Mr Smith that he was going to make another complaint but he never actually did so.
2.5 Mr. Myers was asked if he had ever encountered either Mr. Smith or the bar man who refused him in any other pub or if there had been any trouble involving him in any other premises and he said that the first time he had met either of them was when he visited the pub on 26th December 2002. Mr Myers said that he felt he was made a fool of in front of people he knew and friends when he was in the pub and that he should get an apology for that.
3. Respondent's Evidence
3.1 The respondent did not attend the hearing of the case and offered no evidence other than a written response to the complaint when it was notified to him in 2003 and which is quoted in paragraph 1.2 above.
4. Conclusions of the Equality Officer
4.1 Initially the burden of proof rests with the complainant. I must, therefore, consider whether the complainant in this case, Patrick Myers, has established a prima facie case of discrimination. In order to do so the complainant must satisfy three criteria. (1)It must be established that he is covered by the relevant discriminatory ground i.e. in this case that he is a member of the Traveller community. (2) It must also be established that the actions complained of actually occurred and finally (3) it must be shown that the treatment of the complainant was less favourable than the treatment that would be afforded to another person in similar circumstances who was not a member of the Traveller community. If he fails to establish any of these three facts, then he does not establish a prima-facie case and his complaint of discrimination fails. If he does establish a prima facie case the burden of proof shifts to the respondent who must then rebut the case of the complainant if the complaint is to fail.
4.2 In relation to the first point to be established, I accept from the evidence that the complainant is a member of the Traveller Community. The second point, that the action complained of actually occurred, prompts me to consider conflicts in the evidence provided by the complainant between that outlined in his written complaint to the Equality Tribunal and the oral evidence he provided at the hearing of the complaint. These can be set out as follows:
- The person (Mr. Smith) who the complainant alleged in his original complaint to have refused him is not the same person (the bar man) who he said at the hearing of the complaint refused him. He said, when asked at the hearing, that he did not see Mr. Smith in the pub the date complained of.
- There is no reference to Mr. Myers speaking with the bar man on the 28th December 2002 in his original complaint form, while he said at the hearing of the complaint that it was the bar man who refused him.
- The complainant said at the hearing of this case that the first time he had met either Mr Smith or the barman was on 26th December 2002 when he was in the pub and was served after initially being refused. Yet in his complaint and notification of complaint, he states that he had been served in the pub by Mr Smith a number of times previously until Mr Smith had discovered he was a Traveller.
4.3 The inconsistencies in the evidence from the complainant on these key points leads me to conclude that he has not established on the balance of probabilities that the action complained of actually occurred and therefore, his complaint falls on this point. He has not established a prima facie case of discrimination on the Traveller community ground and it is not necessary to consider the third of the three criteria. On the issue of his complaint of victimisation under Section 3(2) (j) I have not found the evidence to be compelling that his meeting with Mr Smith, where he was asked to drop his complaint one month following the refusal, actually occurred.
5. Decision
5.1 The complainant has complained of discrimination by virtue of a refusal of service on the ground of his membership of the Traveller community. However, his evidence regarding the circumstances of this refusal which was given at the hearing of the complaint contrasts in key areas with the account given in his original complaint to the Equality Tribunal. I have concluded that he has not established that the particular action actually occurred and he has not established a prima facie case of discrimination. The complaint of Patrick Myers (ES/2003/0180) is not upheld DEC-S 2006-012.
Mary O'Callaghan
Equality Officer
28th February 2006