Equal Status Act 2000-2004
Equality Officer Decision DEC-S2007-052
Bernard Doyle
(Represented by Imelda Reidy)
-v-
Locky's Bar
(Represented by Bolger White Egan and Flanagan Solicitors)
Keywords
Equal Status Acts 2000-2004- Direct discrimination, Section 3(1)(a)- Traveller Community Ground, Section 3(2)(i)- Disposal of Goods and Services, Section 5(1)- Refusal of service- reasons for refusal-Suggestion of involvement in previous disorderly incident-Establishment of prima facie case
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 on Friday 27th April 2007.
1. Dispute
1.1 The complainant alleges that he was subjected to discriminatory treatment when he went to Locky's Pub in Portlaoise on 23rd March 2003 and was refused service. He maintained in his complaint 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 the Traveller community.
2. Summary of the Complainant's Case
2.1 The complainant Bernard Doyle said that he was in the town of Portlaoise on 23rd March 2003 with his father and his brother. They had been looking at property when his father suggested that they go to a nearby pub for a drink. All three men are Travellers. Locky's bar was in the vicinity so they went there. He said that his father and brother went and ordered a drink immediately while he went to the WC. When he came out his father and brother already had their drinks and he approached the counter to order a drink. He said that as the lady behind the bar was serving him a pint, Mr. Loughlin Delaney, the respondent, who was at the other end of the bar, indicated to her that Mr. Doyle was not to be served and he was then refused service. Mr. Doyle sought an explanation but Mr. Delaney refused him saying that he did not have to provide an explanation. Mr. Doyle said that his father made himself known to the publican saying that Mr. Doyle was his son but the refusal remained. Mr. Doyle said that all three then left the pub and went to the local Garda station where Mr. Doyle said he reported the incident and was given contact details for the Equality Tribunal if he wished to take his complaint further. He said that he had travelled to Portlaoise that day from Roscrea, in order to do some shopping and he may have been a little untidy as he had been cutting trees. He said that it was a Monday afternoon and that the pub was relatively quiet at the time with only a few patrons.
2.2 Mr Doyle said that although he was a fairly regular visitor to Portlaoise he had never been in Locky's Bar before although his sister and brother in law who lived in the town and who he visited on occasions were regular customers in the bar and also were business acquaintances of the publican. He said that following the refusal, his sister had come and had enquired of Mr. Delaney why her brother had been refused and got no satisfaction.
2.3 Mr. Doyle said that the only reason he could see for the refusal was that he was a member of the Traveller community. He said that he wasn't a drinker and that he did not cause any trouble. He also said in response to the respondent's account of the events leading to the refusal that he was married with four children and that his wife was in her thirties and would not ever visit his family in Portlaoise and she was not welcomed by the family due to existing difficulties. He said that his wife was not with him in Locky's previously as he had not been there. He said he had never been there with a "13" year old.
2.4 Evidence of Bernard Doyle Senior (complainant's father - witness)
Mr. Doyle Senior said he was with his two sons in Portlaoise that day and it was he who suggested going to Locky's Bar for a quick drink before they returned home. He had travelled to the town that day from Thurles where he lived. He said that he had been in Locky's a number of times before with members of his family, particularly those who lived in the town of Portlaoise. He said he had never been there with his son Bernard as Bernard had never been in that pub ever. Mr Doyle Snr. said that when he went to Locky's he ordered drinks for himself and his son James who was with him also but not for Bernard as he was following on behind and he did not know what Bernard wanted to drink. He said the pub was fairly quiet with only a few customers there at the time. He said that when Bernard came in he went to the counter to order and that was when the refusal occurred. He said that he approached the proprietor Mr. Delaney to inform him that Bernard was with him but it made no difference to the refusal. He said that all three of them, Bernard, James and himself, then left the pub and they went to report the matter although it was only Bernard who had been refused. He said that he was the person who spoke with the Garda at the station and not his son and that they were given information on what to do about it. Mr. Doyle Snr. said that his daughter who would have been well known to the publican came alone to the pub later to find out what had occurred and to know why her brother had been refused. He said that she told him she did not get a reason for the refusal either. He said that contrary to what was being said by the publican about his son's previous history in Locky's Bar he was certain that Bernard his son had never been in Locky's before.
2.5 Evidence of James Doyle (witness)
James Doyle said that he is the complainant's brother and was with him and his father when they went to Locky's Bar on 23rd March 2003. He said that although he lives in Thurles now he was resident in Portlaoise at the time of this incident and that his brother and his father had come to the town that day to meet him and to do some shopping. He echoed the evidence of his father and brother regarding the circumstances of the refusal on 23rd March but said that it was his brother not his father who reported the matter at the Garda station.
3. Summary of the Respondent's Case
3.1 The respondent Mr Loughlin Delaney said that he had been in business in the Portlaoise area for a number of years having been in the butchery trade with his father for some time before opening Locky's Bar. He had been in the pub trade for a number of years by the time this incident happened. He described the pub as being fairly big, accommodating between 100 and 150 people. He said it could be described as a working class pub with a large regular clientele from the locality as well as some passers through the town. He said the pub would attract building workers and the like who came in after work.
3.2 Mr. Delaney said that he recalled the incident complained of well. He said he would have known all three of the Doyles. He knew them to be Travellers as they had been in the premises on a number of occasions with the complainant's brother-in-law and sister who were regular customers and who he had done business with through their floor covering business. He recalled that the Doyles usually came in as part of a party when there were family occasions like confirmations or baptisms and he believed that the reason they were in the pub on this occasion was that they were meeting up with family in advance of going to a relative's house to celebrate a Christening. His recollection of the occasion was that there were others with the Doyles and that it was one of these people who came to order for the complainant. When he realised who the drink was being purchased for, he instructed the bar person not to serve Mr Doyle, the complainant. He disagreed with the complainant that incident occurred on a Monday and said that he was sure it was on a Sunday and that the pub was busy as there was a match being played locally.
3.2 The reason that he refused Mr Bernard Doyle on the 23rd March was that on a previous occasion shortly before Christmas 2002, the complainant had come to Locky's bar accompanied by a young female who Mr Delaney took to be under age and he requested identification from this person. He said that at that point the complainant became verbally abusive towards him and he asked him to leave. The complainant persisted in trying to gain entry insisting that he had just become engaged to the woman, until the young woman with him persuaded him to go away. Mr. Delaney said that this incident prompted him to refuse Mr Doyle service when he returned to the pub again. He said he would serve him again if he had apologised for what had occurred. He said that Mr Doyle was the only one of the group who he refused and this was due to his involvement in the Christmas incident.
3.3 Mr. Delaney said that from his recollection Bernard Doyle left the pub alone on the date he
was refused, in March and that it was only when the others finished their drinks that they left. The respondent said he did recall the complainant's sister enquiring about the incident but that she had come with her husband and Mr Delaney explained about the Christmas incident. He said that the complainant's brother-in-law said he did not know about this and accepted the explanation. He said that many Travellers are served in his pub and that he does not discriminate and he cited the fact that he rest of the group including Mr. Doyle Snr. and James Doyle were served that evening.
3.3 Evidence of Respondent's witnesses Mr Dollard and Mr Dowling
Mr. Dollard a staff member of the publican gave evidence confirming the nature of the business and clientele of the pub and indicated that although he was aware of the refusal occurring he new little about it as he was merely walking through the pub premises when it happened. Mr Dowling spoke of being a customer of the pub and of the fact that travellers were served in the pub.
4. Conclusions of the Equality Officer
4.1 At the outset, the burden of proof rests with the complainant. I must, therefore, consider whether the complainant in this case, Bernard Dunne, has established a prima facie case of discrimination. In order to do so the complainant must satisfy three criteria. (1) It must be established that he is covered by the relevant discriminatory ground i.e. in this case that he is a member of the Traveller community. (2)It must also be established that the actions complained of actually occurred and finally (3) 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. If the complainant succeeds in establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent who must then rebut the case of the complainant if his defence is to succeed. If a prima-facie case is not established by the complainant, the complaint fails.
4.2 It is not disputed between the parties that Bernard Dunne is a member of the Traveller community, nor is it disputed that he was refused service Locky's Bar on the 23rd March 2003. Accordinly the first and second of the three criteria outlined above have been satisfied. In considering the third criteria and taking account of the fact that there is a considerable conflict in the evidence of both parties to this complaint I have considered the evidence (outlined above) in its entirety in order to reach a conclusion as to whose evidence is more compelling and on the balance of probabilities an accurate account of the circumstances of Mr Doyle's refusal.
4.3 On the one hand the evidence of the complainant is that he had never been to Locky's Bar before and that there was no valid reason for his refusal on the day, therefore, leading him to conclude his Traveller status led him to be refused while other customers were not.
4.4 On the other hand the respondent's evidence is that the complainant had been to his pub a number of times previously with members of his family and on one occasion in particular sought to gain entry with someone who he believed to be under age. On this occasion the complainant is said to have become verbally abusive when his companion was asked to produce identification and consequently he was asked to leave and left after being persuaded to do so. It is as a result of this earlier incident that the refusal on the 23rd March occurred
4.5 Having considered both of these accounts of the events leading to the refusal I have come to the conclusion that the account provided by the complainant is less compelling than that of the respondent and that on the balance of probabilities the respondent's evidence is a more accurate account of what occurred. In such circumstances I conclude that the treatment afforded to Mr. Bernard Doyle when he attended Locky's Bar on 23rd March 2003 was not less favourable treatment and that any customer in similar circumstances would have received similar treatment. I note in particular that the complainant's father and brother were served without difficulty on the date in question and it is agreed by them that they and members of the family other than the complainant had been served there on other occasions. I also note that the date of the alleged incident was in fact a Sunday and not a Monday as suggested by the complainant. I conclude, therefore, that the complainant, Bernard Doyle, has not established a prima facie case of discrimination and that no rebuttal is required from the respondent.
5. Decision
5.1 The complainant having failed to establish a prima-facie case of discrimination cannot succeed in his complaint (ES/2003/0432). I find for the respondent in this case (DEC-S2007-052).
Mary O'Callaghan
Equality Officer
17th May 2007