Mr. John Maughan & Mrs. Mary Maughan
(Egan, Daughter & Co., Solicitors)
V
The Humbert Inn
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, Section 26 - failure to respond to notification under section 21(2), power to draw inferences
Delegation under Equal Status Acts, 2000-2004
The complainant referred a claim to the Director of Equality Investigations on 5th March, 2002 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 took place in Castlebar on 23rd March 2006.
1. Dispute
1.1 The dispute concerns a claim by Mr. John Maughan and Mrs. Mary Maughan that they were discriminated against by The Humbert Inn 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 Summary of the Case
2.1 The complainant's case is that they entered the respondent's public house at about 8:15pm on 20th November 2001 to watch the Liverpool v Barcelona Football Match which was being broadcast on television that evening. They were refused service and they submitted that they believed that the reason for the refusal was because they are members of the Traveller community. In response to the respondent's case, Mr. Maughan denied that he had caused any hassle in the pub or that he was barred.
2.2 The respondent's case is that the complainants were not in the pub on the night in question and if they were Mr. Maughan had been barred on a previous occasion and he would not have been served. Mr. John Connaughton, the licensee, said that he could not recall when he barred Mr. Maughan. He said that when Mr. Maughan was a customer and after being served a drink he talked to other customers and he believed that these customers did not like it. He said that he asked Mr. Maughan to stay on his own and not to talk to other customers and Mr. Maughan did not obey his instructions and as a result he was barred.
3 Conclusions of the Equality Officer
3.1 The first matter I have to decide is whether the complainants have established a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment. I am satisfied that the complainants are Travellers. While the respondent, Mr. Connaughton, disputes the complainants' presence in the pub in the 20th November 2006, I am satisfied on the evidence available to me that the complainants went to the pub to view the match between Barcelona and Liverpool which was taking place on the night in question. Likewise I am satisfied that they were refused service. The next question for consideration is whether the complainants were treated less favourably than non-Travellers would have been treated in a similar situation. As there was a complete conflict of evidence it is necessary to consider which evidence I found to be the more convincing. I found the evidence of the respondent in relation to the reason he barred the complainant to be inconsistent with the reasons he gave for barring customers from the pub. Mr. Connaughton said that he bars customers for serious matters such as fighting or having drugs on the premises but he does not bar people for being drunk. His evidence however was that he barred Mr. Maughan for talking to other customers. I find therefore that the complainants, both having been refused service on the night in question, have established that they were treated less favourably than non-Travellers were treated in similar circumstances.
3.1 I note that the respondent did not respond to the statutory notification of the complaints of discrimination nor did he lodge a response to the complaints until the day of the hearing. He had an opportunity to respond to the complaints as the complainants notified the respondent of the complaint by letter dated 15th January 2002 but received no reply. I also note that the case was listed for hearing on the 30th June 2004 and the respondent did not attend or reply to the notification of the hearing. Mr. Connaughton said at this hearing his wife was ill at the time. However I am satisfied that he had an opportunity to respond to the complaints but he chose not to do so. As the respondent did not respond to any of the communications, the complainants were not given the reason for being refused entry until the day of the hearing.
3.2 Section 26of the Equal Status Act, 2000. Section 26 of the Act provides:
"If in the course of an investigation under Section 25, it appears to the Director-
(a) that the respondent did not reply to a notification under section 21(2)(a) or to any question asked by a complainant under section 21(2)(b),
the Director may draw such inferences, if any, as seem appropriate from the failure to reply"
In the circumstance I have decided to draw an inference from the fact the respondent failed to comply with Section 26. The most appropriate inference to draw in the light of the conduct of the case by the respondent, in my opinion, is that the decision taken by the respondent to refuse service to the complainants was based solely on the fact they are members of the Traveller community. I find therefore that the respondent has failed to rebut the prima facie case of discriminatory treatment established by the complainants
4. Decision
4.1 On the basis of the foregoing I find that the complainants, Mr. John Maughan and Mrs. Mary Maughan, were discriminated against by the respondent on the Traveller community ground 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. I order the Humbert Inn to pay the complainant Mr. John Maughan and Mrs. Mary Maughan the sum of €500 each (five hundred euro each) for the effects of the discrimination.
________________
Marian Duffy
Equality Officer
24th May, 2006