Vincent Sparling
-v-
Michael O'Donoghue
East Avenue Hotel
Keywords
Equal Status Acts 200-2004- Direct discrimination, Section 3(1)(a)- Traveller Community Ground, Section 3(2)(i)- Disposal of Goods and Services, Section 5(1)- Refusal of service
Delegation under the Equal Status Act 2000
This complaint was referred 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 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 Killarney on Friday 4th August, 2006.
1. Dispute
1.1 The complainant alleges that he was subjected to discriminatory treatment when he went to the East Avenue Hotel in Killarney on 28th December 2002 and was refused service. He maintains that this treatment is in breach of the Equal Status Act 2000 in terms of Section 3 (2) (i) and contrary to Section 5 (1) of the Act, i.e. that he was refused access to goods and services because of his membership of or association with the Traveller community.
2. Summary of the Complainants Case
2.1 The complainant, Vincent Sparling, said that although he is not a Traveller, he is married to a member of the Traveller community as is his brother. He said that although he was well known in the town he would often be mistaken for a Traveller. He said that he considered himself a member of the Traveller community by association. Mr. Sparling said he had been in the bar of the East Avenue Hotel three nights before the evening of the incident complained of and had been served. He said that on the evening of the refusal he went there alone and met some people near the entrance to the premises. He said that while he thought the bar was fairly busy there weren't many people around the door. He said that about 7-8 people passed him and entered the bar in a group. He said that he noticed a man he knew to be a member of the Traveller community near the door. This person did not gain entry and when Mr. Sparling sought to gain entry to the premises he was stopped by the doorman who told him no big groups and that the premises already had its quota of Travellers. Mr. Sparling said he had never been refused in the East Avenue Hotel before. He accepted that his wife had been barred some time previously for singing in the pub and he had left with her.
2.2 He said it was suggested to him on the evening complained of that he should speak to the manager but he refused. He said he did not see why he should have to speak to the manager when he had no drink taken. He did not know if the Gardai were called because he did not wait to see if any one came along.
2.3 Mr. Sparling was asked if there was any reason other than his association with the Traveller community why he may not have been served that night and he said no and that it was the same in most bars.
3. Summary of the Respondent's case
3.1 The security manager and manager of the respondent hotel attended for the respondent. The manager outlined that the clientele of the hotel would be mixed but generally middle aged. Because of its location it attracted both locals and tourists and this would be the case all year round. Both the manager and the security manager said that they knew Mr. Sparling and that he came to the pub generally on his own but was not a regular. Neither manager knew him as a Traveller.
3.2 With regard to the incident complained of, the security manager said that it was a door man who stopped Mr. Sparling at the door of the Hotel. As the Hotel was part of a chain of hotels for which the security manager was responsible, he was not on the premises of the East Avenue Hotel that night. He was, however, called over, to the hotel by the door man when this incident occurred. The security manager disputed the complainant's assertion that the reason for stopping him was because they had their quota of Travellers and he said that there were a number of Travellers who frequented the premises many of whom were regulars.
3.3 The security manager said that Mr. Sparling had come to his attention previously when he had taken issue with the staff of the premises after his wife had been barred. His attitude at that time led to Mr. Sparling being barred. In such circumstances a customer would always be invited to discuss the matter with management and if they were satisfied that the incident would not recur, the customer would be re-admitted in time. Mr. Sparling had not availed of that opportunity at the time. He said that although Mr. Sparling had generally come to the bar premises on his own he had a tendency to become involved in any issues between the staff and customers and had threatened legal action on a number of occasions. The security manager said that this was what occurred on the evening complained of by Mr. Sparling. The door staff were dealing with a group of people at the door when Mr. Sparling arrived. There was an issue regarding large groups due to the fact that the premises was quite busy and the door staff were dealing with this when Mr. Sparling intervened and became involved in the matter. It was known by the doorman on duty that Mr. Sparling was barred and the security manager was called. It was then he was refused and he was given an opportunity to speak to the manager but he declined to do so. The fact that Mr. Sparling had been served some nights previously was due to the fact that he had not been recognised by the bar staff and he did not do anything that would have brought staff attention to him.
4. Conclusions of the Equality Officer
4.1 At the outset the burden of proof in relation to whether discrimination occurred rests with the complainant. I must first consider whether the complainant in this case, Vincent Sparling has established a prima facie case of discrimination. In order to do so the complainant must satisfy three criteria. It must be established that the relevant discriminatory ground applies to him, i.e. in this case that he is member of the Traveller community or associated with that community, as alleged in this case. It must also be established that the actions complained of actually occurred and finally 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. He must establish all of these facts if a prima facie case of discrimination is to be established. In relation to the first point I accept that the Traveller community ground applies to Mr Sparling through his association with Travellers, due to his family relationship with members of the Traveller community. It is not disputed between the parties that he was refused admission to the premises that night thus, satisfying the second criterion. With regard to whether Mr. Sparling was afforded less favourable treatment than others in similar circumstances would have received on the evening complained of, I have considered the evidence in its entirety and have concluded that the evidence of the respondent regarding the circumstances surrounding the particular refusal of Mr. Sparling that night was more compelling than that of the complainant. I consider that on the balance of probabilities there were valid reasons for refusing the complainant and if these applied to any other potential customer s/he would have been refused also. I conclude therefore that the complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination.
5. Decision
5.1 In circumstances where a complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination, his/her complaint cannot be upheld. I, therefore, find that Vincent Sparling was not discriminated against on the Traveller community ground by the respondent, Michael O'Donoghue, East Avenue Hotel, Killarney, Co. Kerry (DEC-S2006-074).
Mary O'Callaghan
Equality Officer
19th October 2006