Julie Stokes
-v-
T& H Conlon (Athlone) Ltd. T/A Bozo's Nightclub
Julie Stokes 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
On 14th September 2002 the complainant left home with her sister, her sister's fiancé and a friend to go to a nightclub. They decided to go to Bozo's as the nightclub they normally attend was closed that night. They were celebrating the complainant's sister's engagement. They went straight from home, without having had a drink. Single Traveller girls do not drink. They were stopped at the entrance of the nightclub and asked for identification. When this was produced they were told that they were not getting in because they had had too much to drink. The complainant denied stumbling as alleged by the respondent. She also denied arguing as there were people she knew from her place of work at the nightclub. In her notification the complainant stated that she went home and her father took her to the Gardai. At the hearing she stated that she called her father on a mobile phone and he came to them. They flagged down the Gardai as they drove past the nightclub. The complainant stated that she had the help of a solicitor in drawing up her notification and that she has limited literacy skills.
Summary of the Respondent's Case
The respondent stated that as the group arrived at the nightclub one of the party, the complainant, stumbled. The doorman asked for identification and then told the complainant that she was not going to be admitted. The other three were directed to go ahead, they entered and subsequently came back out to be with their friend. One of the party became agitated and accused the doorman of discrimination. The complainant also became agitated and abusive. One of the party went to a nearby shop and obtained a disposable camera, took a number of pictures, then stated that now they had the doormen's pictures and threatened them. Another man arrived, parking right up on the footpath at the door and was also abusive. Some of the party stopped the Gardai who did not come to the door. The normal policy is to ask the majority of customers for identification as this allows them to check for age and also engages the customer in conversation allowing an assessment of their intoxication. The doorman who stopped the complainant stated in evidence that as she approached she stumbled in her high heels. He asked for identification and spoke briefly to her. He had to make an instantaneous decision as to her intoxication and based on her stumble and her conversation he decided that she had been drinking and on that basis he decided to refuse her admission. He agreed that she indicated that she did not drink but he had to make a call and his decision was to refuse admission.
Conclusions of the Equality Officer
I am satisfied, and it was accepted by the respondent, that the complainant is a member of the Traveller community. It was agreed that the complainant was refused admission to the nightclub on 14th September 2002. What is in dispute is the reason for that refusal. The complainant alleges it was because of her membership of the Traveller community while the respondent alleges it was based on an alleged stumble and an assessment, correct or otherwise, that the complainant was intoxicated.
At the moment of the initial refusal there had been no abusive or aggressive behavior. The complainant and her party had simply approached the door of the nightclub. The complainant denies that she stumbled but admits she was wearing high heels. The respondent states that the doorman saw her stumble and had to make a decision. He engaged her in conversation to allow him to assess her and rightly or wrongly he decided that she had been drinking. With the three sets of stairs in the nightclub he decided to refuse admission as he had assessed her as intoxicated.
Bases on the evidence presented to me, and while I accept the complainants evidence in relation to her not being intoxicated, I find the respondent's evidence more compelling and on the balance of probabilities I find that she was not refused admission simply because she is a member of the Traveller community.
Therefore I find that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the Traveller ground.
Decision DEC-S2007-046
I find that the complainant was not discriminated against on the basis of her membership of the Traveller community when she was refused admission to the respondent's nightclub on 14th September 2002.
Bernadette Treanor
Equality Officer
18th April 2007