John & Mary Stokes
V
Gilmore's Pub, Co. Galway
(Represented by J. Fahey Solicitors)
John and Mary Stokes each 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 Complainants' case
The complainants were regulars in the respondent premises for many years. Mr. Stokes had been barred once before in 1996 or 1997. Eventually he became a customer again and this had continued until December 2002. He was told that he would not be served and to come back after Christmas. He spoke to the pub owner a number of times; based on the evidence it appears that they spoke at least three times, once on the street, a second time in the pub on either the 27th or 29th December and a third time on New Year's Eve. He was told to come back after Christmas, after 6th January. He realised then that he was not welcome in the pub and that what his brother-in-law had told him about that was correct. The complainants admitted that there had been an altercation on 21st December 2002 involving their daughter and her husband but stated that they had not been involved. The altercation took place on the street outside the pub. Mr. Stokes stated that he had not wanted to take the claim but felt that it was the only way to find out why their relationship with the publican had deteriorated and why they were no longer welcome. On 29th Mr. Stokes spoke to Mr. Gilmore. Ms. Stokes also went to speak to him subsequently. She gave him her phone so that he brother could speak to Mr. Gilmore. She alleges that Ms. Gilmore, the respondent's wife, verbally accosted her and said that she would not be served in the pub again. She left.
Summary of the Respondent's Case
The respondent agreed that there had been a good relationship between the parties except for the period when Mr. Stokes was barred in 1996 or 1997. Mr. Gilmore described an incident which took place outside the pub on 21st December 2002. The complainants grandchild had been christened that day and the party had been elsewhere. The group arrived in Gilmore's. There was some difficulty during the evening with younger members of the complainants' group with allegations of underage drinking and these were required to leave. At closing time, the respondent asked Mr. Stokes for his help in clearing the bar. They left the premises without any disturbance but Mr. Gilmore's attention was drawn to a disturbance outside shortly afterwards. When he went outside Mr. Stokes was arguing with his son-in-law who had stripped to the waist and was shouting that he was king of Ballygar. Mr. Gilmore agrees that he met Mr. Stokes a number of times afterwards when he told him to come back after Christmas. Mr. Stokes was not barred but he was not welcome after the incident on 21st December. Mr. Gilmore feels that he has consistently served Travellers even when others would not. He continues to do so. The complainants have not been back in the pub. What he had expected was that after Christmas the complainants would have come back and the matter could have been resolved. He stated at the hearing that when he had received the complaint from the complainants in early 2003 he had decided that they were barred and that they had effectively barred themselves by lodging the complaint. When Mr. Gilmore's representative was asked if he would like some time to speak to his client about these comments in terms of the victimisation provisions of the Act, he did so and the comments were subsequently withdrawn. What he had intended to say was that he would have spoken to Mr. Stokes and resolved the matter face to face but that when he received the complaint he realized that Mr. Stokes had chosen to go down another road.
Conclusions of the Equality Officer
It was agreed that the complainants are members of the Traveller community. It was also agreed that they were refused service around Christmas 2002. What has to be decided is whether or not the complainants were treated less favourably than a non-Traveller would have been treated in similar circumstances. I am satisfied that had non-Travellers been involved in a fracas as described in evidence that they would also have been refused service. I find the respondent's response to the situation, temporarily refusing service, entirely reasonable in the circumstances. Therefore the complainants have failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the Traveller ground.
However, based on the evidence presented, I also find that the respondent was upset by the matter as a whole and the fracas in particular, and that when the complainants lodged their claim of discrimination he felt aggrieved by it. It appears that he felt that they were then masters of their own destiny and that, as he stated, they had effectively barred themselves. I find that Mr. Gilmore decided this in the absence of any knowledge of the victimisation provisions and that he felt that barring them was a reasonable response. However, the victimisation provisions are a protection for people to ensure, inter alia, that taking a complaint will not render their position any worse. In this case their position was worsened by taking the claim. I find that a prima facie case of discrimination on the victimisation ground has been established and that the withdrawal of the comments made during the hearing does not rebut that.
Decision DEC-S2007-071
I find that the complainants have failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the Traveller ground. I also find that they were discriminated against in that they were victimised as a result of lodging their claims and I hereby order the respondent to pay each of them €1000 for the effects of the discrimination.
Bernadette Treanor
Equality Officer
5th October 2007