Bridget Wall & Christina Connors
V
Wooden Bridge Hotel
(Represented by Connellan solicitors)
Bridget Wall and Christina Connors 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
Bridget Wall contacted the Wooden Bridge Hotel for her mother, Christina Connors, to book the hotel for a wedding for Bridget's sister. The person she spoke to told her that the day they were interested in, 15th May 2003, was free. Bridget made an appointment to go to the hotel to discuss the booking the next day. When they arrived they met the manager and were offered tea. They were shown the rooms, dinner menus etc and they discussed prices and numbers. The manager told them that a deposit would be required and the complainants explained that the groom's parents would pay half and that they needed to contact them. They asked that they be booked in for the day they wanted and said they would return the following day to pay the deposit. The manager took a note of the names in a book. Bridget called the following day again to make arrangements to pay the deposit. She was told that there was no record of any such booking. When they arrived at the hotel they asked for the manager and expected to see the same person they had met the day before. However a man came to meet them. He told them that it was his wife that had met them the day before and that he had no booking for a wedding from them and that they were not free on that day. He walked them to the door. Bridget stated that she was confused and that she was asking about the booking as he was walking them towards the door. They asked for a different date but were told that there was nothing there for them. Bridget Wall explained that they had shown the brochure to her sister and that she had been delighted. Christina Connors explained that they had discussed it with the groom's family and were concerned about the shame of having to go back to them.
Summary of the Respondent's Case
Ms. O'Brien said that she did not have an appointment to meet the complainants but that once there was someone there to discuss a wedding she sat them down, offered tea and discussed menu's etc. which she did with the complainants. She thought it was a general enquiry. She asked if Ms. Wall was the bride and the complainants explained that it was a sister. She did not show the complainants around the hotel. She said at the hearing that they like to meet the bride and groom before they commit themselves and that as far as she was concerned it was a general enquiry. She did not take notes and was not asked to hold the date. Mr. O'Brien stated that the lady at reception said that there were two ladies asking about a booking that they did not have and they were insistent. He met them and they were determinedly aggressive. They gave him a story. He was not interested in doing business with people like that. The complainants asked about the possibility of any other booking and he replied that he was not prepared to give them any other booking. Normally when people ask for a booking it is provisional and becomes firm when a deposit is paid. Mr. O'Brien could not recall how the meeting ended. A diary for 2003 was produced and it contained no booking or marks at all for 15th May 2003.
Conclusions of the Equality Officer
I am satisfied that the complainants are members of the Traveller community. It is agreed that the respondent ultimately refused to take a booking for a wedding from the complainants. It was the complainants that sought to make the booking and I am satisfied that such a request for a booking constitutes a request for service in terms of the Act.
It is clear that the complainants and Ms. O'Brien have different perceptions or recollections of their first meeting. On the basis of the respondent's desire to meet the prospective bride and groom and to receive a deposit, the explanation from the complainants that the groom's family would have to be contacted to pay part of the deposit and the different cultural backgrounds of the parties, I am satisfied that a situation could have arisen where the complainants thought that they had a provisional booking and at the same time the respondent thought that it was a general enquiry. I can also accept that the complainants were put out about the respondent not having a record of their visit and their request for a booking by the time they arrived at the hotel the following day. Mr. O'Brien stated that the complainants were determinedly aggressive. He was asked at the hearing to specifically describe their demeanor and approach but he failed to describe anything that could be considered out of the ordinary for a customer who is upset with the service received. At that stage it appears to have been a customer service issue which could have been resolved. On the basis of the evidence presented I am not satisfied that a non-Traveller in similar circumstances would have been treated in the same way. I find that the complainants have established a prima facie case of discrimination on the Traveller ground.
The respondent stated that on the basis of the complainant's reaction to being informed that there was no booking he decided not to accept their custom at all. However, he has failed to present evidence which would support this decision in terms of the Act and has therefore failed to rebut the prima facie case of discrimination.
Decision DEC-S2007-045
I find that the complainants were discriminated against by the respondent when they refused to accept a booking from them for a wedding. I hereby order the respondent to pay the complainants €500 each for the effects of the discrimination
Bernadette Treanor
Equality Officer
18th April 2007