Michael Collins & Michael Myers
V
Jordan's Public House, Mayo
Michael Collins and Michael Myers each referred a claim of discrimination on the Traveller ground 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
Michael Collins and Michael Myers left the family home in Ballina and went to Jordan's pub around 8pm or 8:30pm on 15th July 2002. Michael Myers ordered the first drinks from a barman and Michael Collins ordered the second from a bar lady. Before they finished their second drinks a man approached them and introduced himself as Peter Jordan and asked them to finish their drinks and leave. When asked for a reason Mr. Jordan said he did not have to give them a reason. He stood over them while they finished their drinks and then escorted them to the door in front of other customers, while saying out, out, out. They had not had any alcohol before going to Jordans. They left the premises without any arguments or difficulties.
Summary of the Respondent's Case
Mr. Jordan stated that he was not working on 15th July 2002. It was a quiet Monday night during the festival and there was two members of staff on duty. They were told that only one would be necessary after 9pm if it was quiet. Between 9:20pm and 9:30 pm Mr. Jordan received a call from the bar lady telling him that there was two gentlemen there who had been served two drinks and that she was not happy to serve them any more since it seemed that they had had more to drink. He arrived at the pub and spoke to the bar lady and then entered the lounge where the complainants were sitting. He stood talking to another customer and observed the complainants. He then went over to them and asked them to finish their drinks and leave. They asked for a reason and he told them that he did not have to give them one. He stated that he does not give reasons as he feels this can antagonize such situations. He went back behind the bar. The complainants finished their drinks and left without further comment. Mr. Jordan stated that his actions would have been the same had the complainants been non-Travellers.
Conclusions of the Equality Officer
It was accepted that the complainants are members of the Travelling community. It was also agreed that they were asked to leave the respondent's premises. What is in dispute is the reason for that request and what the complainants must establish is that they were treated less favourably than non-Travellers would have been in the same circumstances.
The complainants allege that they were asked to leave simply because they are members of the Traveller community. The respondent alleges that they were asked to leave because his assessment of them, informed by the assessment of them by his staff member, was that they had had enough to drink.
Based on the evidence presented to me I find the respondent's version of events more compelling, particularly in respect of the events after the respondent asked them to leave. I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent assessed the complainants as intoxicated and that non-Travellers would also have been asked to leave if they had been similarly assessed.
Therefore I find that the complainants have failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
Decision DEC-S2007-043
Since the complainants have failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination it is my decision that they were not discriminated against by the respondent on 15th July 2002.
Bernadette Treanor
Equality Officer
18th April 2007