Ms. Jean Browne
(Represented by John J. Gordon & Son Solicitors)
V
Chung's at Tullio's, Ballina
Jean Browne referred a claim of discrimination on the Traveller, race and age grounds and victimisation 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
Ms. Browne attended a christening celebration of about 30 people in Chung's restaurant on 20th July 2003 for a celebratory meal. She had been a regular there for approximately two years. Ms. Browne was friendly with a member of the restaurant staff, John, whom she believed was the manager. On 20th July 2003 she and a number of others left the restaurant around 6pm to go home to change. They intended to return to the restaurant where finger food had been ordered for the group for later in the evening. She had had only two glasses of lager and had consumed 7up and water throughout the afternoon. When she returned to the restaurant in the company of a black relative they were both refused entrance by the doorman. He told her that they did not want her kind in there. When she asked what he meant by her kind he told her that she knew what he meant. He told her that only people who were eating would be allowed in. When she pointed out that they had food ordered for later he told her that she was still not getting in. At first she thought it was because of where she lived. Then she considered that it might have been because some of her relatives were married to Travellers and she was dressed in what she described as a 'gypsy top with hoop earrings'. In addition, her companion was black. The complainant was very embarrassed and upset by the refusal since she was not allowed to rejoin the group she had spent the day with and also because people she knew were passing during the incident. She subsequently found out that about an hour earlier her cousin and his wife, who is a Traveller, had also been refused. Shortly after refusing the complainant, the doorman went in to the group remaining in the restaurant and asked them all to leave. When she contacted John on Monday she was told that the bouncer had indicated that he must be allowed to do his job or that he would leave. John indicated that Ms. Browne could still order take-away meals but that she would be unable to sit down to eat in the restaurant.
Summary of the Respondent's Case
Mr. Chung indicated that he had failed to make contact with the staff of the restaurant, particularly the doorman, and so could not present their evidence. John was not the manager but a Thai waiter with a work permit. He had had a manager who operated between the restaurant and a hotel in another town. When the manager was recruiting door staff for the hotel he also recruited the doorman for the restaurant to address difficulties experienced by the staff at the hands of customers. The doorman started a number of weeks before the incident. He was directed to refuse people who were causing trouble, drunk or shouting. Mr. Chung was unsure whether or not the manager was still in charge at the time of the incident or whether an Irish member of staff, not a manager was in charge. In any event he could not recall whether or not either of them was there on the night of the incident. Mr. Chung stated that the doorman was a professional and very unlikely to behave in the manner described by Ms. Browne. It would not have been in his interests to stop people going in unless he had to since this would affect business and consequently his job. He stated that if the doorman stopped Ms. Browne he must have had a good reason for doing so. The doorman indicated to Mr. Chung on the night that there had been an incident but Mr. Chung could not recall the details.
Conclusions of the Equality Officer
I am satisfied, based on the evidence presented that a refusal of service took place. It is alleged that the refusal was because of the complainant's appearance and connections with the Traveller community. She had had a meal in the restaurant earlier in the day and had left it without any difficulty being brought to her attention. Since no other reasonable explanation has been presented that would explain the refusal of service I find that an inference of discrimination on the Traveller ground, by association, arises. While the complainant also alleged discrimination on the race and age grounds I find that insufficient evidence was presented to support these. Victimisation was also indicated on the notification but this also was unsubstantiated.
The doorman was not available to indicate what his reasons for the refusal were on the night. The respondent indicated that as the doorman was, in his opinion, a professional he would not have refused the complainant without good cause and that therefore there must have been some difficulty with her. The briefing that Mr. Chung gave the doorman when he started was limited and it appears that the doorman essentially was allowed to use his own discretion. In addition, the respondent could not confirm if there was anyone at the restaurant that evening who was in charge and it appears, therefore, that there was nobody for the doorman to refer to. Any decisions he took were his own and the respondent was certain that any choices made were appropriate in the circumstances. The respondent could not indicate any situations where the complainant's behaviour might have led to a refusal. I find that the respondent has failed to rebut the inference of discrimination.
The doorman was a direct employee of the respondent's and Section 42 provides for such situations.
Decision DEC-S2007-070
I find that the complainant was discriminated against on the Traveller ground by association when she was refused service on 20th July 2003. I hereby order the respondent to pay her €1000 for the effects of the discrimination.
Bernadette Treanor
Equality Officer
5th October 2007