Decision DEC-S2007-051
Christopher Stokes
V
Moll Brown's Pub, Waterford
Key words
Equal Status Acts 2000 - 2004 - Direct discrimination, section 3(1)(a) - Traveller community ground, section 3(2)(i) - Supply of goods and services, section 5(1) - Refusal of service in a pub - Establishment of a prima facie case - Non attendance at Hearing by complainant
Delegation under the Equal Status Acts, 2000 - 2004
This complaint was referred to the Director of Equality Investigations under the Equal Status Acts 2000-2004. In accordance with her powers under section 75 of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 and 2004 and under the Equal Status Acts 2000 - 2004, the Director has delegated the complaint to myself, Brian O'Byrne, 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 - 2004.
Dispute
This dispute concerns a complaint by Mr Christopher Stokes that he was discriminated against by Moll Brown's Pub, Waterford in being refused service on 31 December 2001. In his complaint, Mr Stokes maintained that the refusal occurred because he was recognised as a member of the Traveller community.
The Hearing
The Hearing of this complaint was scheduled for 10 am on Thursday 26 April 2007 in the Tower Hotel, Waterford and both parties were notified of the Hearing date, time and venue in March 2007.
On 26 April 2007, neither party arrived for the 10am Hearing. I then waited a further 45 minutes in the hotel in case the parties had encountered an unexpected delay. When no one had arrived by 10.45am, I departed the hotel.
In cases under the Equal Status Acts, the onus is on the complainant to provide evidence at Hearing establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. As the complainant in this case did not attend the Hearing on 26 April 2007 and I am satisfied that his legal representatives were formally notified of the Hearing date (An Post have provided written evidence that the registered Hearing notification was delivered to the complainant's solicitors on 30 March 2007), I find that a prima facie case has not been established in this instance.
Decision
In complaints such as this, the onus is on the complainant to establish a prima facie case by appearing at the Hearing to give evidence. As the complainant in this case did not attend on 26 April 2007 and I am satisfied that his legal representatives were formally notified of the Hearing date, I find that a prima facie case has not been established on the Traveller community ground in terms of sections 3(1) and 3(2)(i) of the Equal Status Acts 2000 - 2004.
Accordingly, I find against the complainant in the matter.
Brian O'Byrne
Equality Officer
14 May 2007