Complaint under the Equal Status Act 2000
DEC - S2007 - 056
Tommy O'Donnell
V
Crescent Bar, Roscommon
(Represented by C.E. Callan & Co. Solicitors)
Tommy O'Donnell 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 Sunday 28th October 2001 Mr. O'Donnell entered the Crescent bar around 12:45 pm. He went to the bar, ordered a pint and left some money on the bar. Mr. Dodd, the owner of the bar, lifted his money and called him towards the front door. While still inside he told the complainant he could not serve him as he would lose customers if they thought it was a Traveller's bar. He handed the money back to Mr. O'Donnell who left the premises. On the previous night the complainant had been in the bar for the first time. He had enjoyed the night playing darts and he went back to the pub the next morning for another game of darts. There had been no difficulties the previous night.
Summary of the Respondent's Case
The respondent stated that the complainant was known to him as were some members of his family who had previously been customers. He agrees that the complainant had been there one night before the Sunday morning. However he recalls it being the Friday night as they had a regular darts session on Friday nights. Darts sessions are only rarely held on Saturday. He stated that on the Sunday morning he was serving other customers when the complainant entered, ordered a pint and left money on the counter. After a moment when he finished serving others he lifted the money, asked the complainant for a chat and went outside the door. The door was closed behind him and he stood in the doorway with the complainant who had followed him outside. He handed the complainant his money back and told him he was not going to serve him. He may have been asked why and responded that customers had indicated to him that they would be unhappy if he, the complainant, became a customer. He did not say it was because the complainant was a Traveller; no reference was made to Travellers whatsoever. Mr. Dodd stated that on the Friday night three customers had indicated to him that the complainant had a reputation and that he should take care while serving him. He stated that there was a certain tension in the air on the night. The following morning Mr. Dodd had contact with a number of other local publicans who made him aware of particular problems they had encountered previously with the complainant.
The respondent's representative stated that having been told that the complainant was aggressive and intimidating in drink the respondent made a decision, as he is entitled to make, not to offer services to the complainant, in accordance with Section 15 of the Act. She also indicated three decisions of the Tribunal for consideration, DEC-S2006-013, DEC-S2006-018 and DEC-S2006-027. Although these cases relate to alleged refusals of service which took place after the incident in this case they contain references to the complainant being barred before the refusals took place.
Conclusions of the Equality Officer
It was accepted that the complainant is a member of the Traveller community and that he was refused service on 28th October 2006. What is not accepted is that the refusal was because the complainant is a Traveller. When the complainant came in to the pub on the Friday or Saturday night before the refusal it was agreed that this was his first time in there. The complainant's background as a local was known to the respondent who also knew members of the complainant's family. It is agreed that the complainant was served without difficulty. Therefore while the respondent knew that the complainant was settled he also knew that his family had previously travelled. Therefore he knew when serving him on that first occasion that the complainant was a member of the Traveller community as defined by the Acts. The respondent stated in evidence that potential difficulties arising from serving the complainant were drawn to his attention at the end of that first encounter. He stated that on being so informed he made enquiries to assess these potential difficulties. He further stated that he was given information by other publicans in the area in respect of difficulties involving the complainant which had arisen in other premises. When he refused the complainant service on Sunday 28th October 2001 I am satisfied that he was in possession of information which led him to believe that serving the complainant could lead to disorderly conduct. Since I am satisfied that the respondent would treat a non-Traveller, about whom he had been given similar information, in the same manner as the complainant I find that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the Traveller ground.
Decision DEC-S2007-056
As the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination I find that the respondent did not discriminate against him when service was refused on Sunday 28th October 2001.
Bernadette Treanor
Equality Officer