Mr. Patrick Stokes & Mrs. Margaret Stokes
(Represented by Ms. Sinead Lucey, Solicitor Equality Authority)
V
Alan Malone, The Capital (Dublin)
(Represented by Ms. Eimear Brown B.L.
instructed by O'Regan Little Solicitors,
Keywords
Equal Status Act, 2000 - Direct discrimination, section 3(1) - Traveller community,
Section 3(2)(i) - supply of goods and services, Section 5(1) - access to a service in a pub, prima facie case -failure to attend hearing.
Delegation under Equal Status Acts, 2000-2004
The complainant referred a claim to the Director of Equality Investigations on 3rd October 2001 under the Equal Status Acts, 2000. In accordance with her powers under section 75 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and under the Equal Status Acts, 2000 the Director delegated the case to me, Marian Duffy, 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 Acts, 2000. The hearing was set to take place in Dublin on 17th May 2006.
1. Dispute
1.1 The dispute concerns a claim by Mr. Patrick Stokes & Mrs. Margaret Stokes that they were discriminated against by the Capital, a licensed premises, on the Traveller Community ground in that they were refused a service which is generally available to the public. The complainants alleged that the respondent discriminated against them in terms of Sections 3(1)(a), and 3(2)(i) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 contrary to Section 5(1) of that Act.
2 Outline of Events
2.1 The complainants did not attend the hearing of the case arranged for 17th May 2006. The respondent and his representative were in attendance. The complainants' solicitor applied to have the case adjourned on the grounds that her clients were unavailable as they had to travel to Galway to see a sick relative. The respondent's representative, Ms. Brown, opposed the application.
3 Conclusions of the Equality Officer
3.1 I note that Ms. Lucey, the complainants' representative, only became aware of the complainants whereabouts after arriving at the Tribunal for the hearing and only after she had attempted to contact them by telephone. Ms. Lucey made contact with a relative and was informed that they had been called away to Galway to see a sick child. From the information presented to me, I am satisfied that the sick relative was not an immediate family member and that the complainants would have been in a position to inform their solicitor about the situation. I refused to grant the adjournment as I was satisfied there was no direct contact from the complainants to instruct their solicitor to apply for an adjournment or to explain to the Tribunal the reasons for their non-attendance. I am also satisfied that they had been notified of the hearing well in advance of the date set.
Where a complainant does not attend the hearing of his/her case a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment cannot be established.
4. Decision
4.1 On the basis of the foregoing I find that the complainants, Mr. Patrick Stokes and Mrs. Margaret Stokes have not established prima facie cases of discrimination in terms of Section 3(1) and 3(2)(i) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 and contrary to Section 5(1) of that Act and accordingly their complaints are dismissed.
______________
Marian Duffy
Equality Officer
22nd May 2006