Equal Status Act 2000
Decision DEC-S2008-011
Mary Cash, Mary Moloney, Elizabeth Connors & Mary Connors
V
Wonderboy Casino, Cork
Key words
Equal Status Act 2000 - Direct discrimination, section 3(1)(a) - Membership of the Traveller community, section 3(2)(i) - Supply of goods and services, section 5(1) - Refusal of Service in a Casino - Establishment of a prima facie case - Non attendance at Hearing by Complainants
Dispute
This dispute concerns a complaint by Mary Cash, Mary Moloney, Elizabeth Connors & Mary Connors that they were discriminated against in being refused service in the Wonderboy Casino, Cork on 3 March 2003 because of their membership of the Traveller community.
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 Acts, 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.
Background Note
In August 2007, an initial attempt was made at short notice to arrange the Hearing of this case for 6 September 2007 in Cork. This was not possible, however, as the complainants' solicitor replied saying that she had not been able to make contact with her four clients. She said that the only person she had ever been personally in contact with in relation to the complaint was Ms Elizabeth Cash who had originally approached her at the time of the incident in March 2003. The solicitor explained that Elizabeth Cash was one of the women affected by the refusal on 3 March 2003 but her name had been inadvertently left off the original complaint forms and she had not been registered as s formal complainant. Ms Cash was, however, planning to attend the Hearing as a witness for the four complainants.
On 12 October 2007, letters issued to the representatives of both sides informing them that the Hearing of the complaint would be held on 16 November 2007 in the Jury's Inn Hotel, Cork.
On 13 November 2007, the complainants' solicitor wrote to the Tribunal stating that she was coming off record and that she would not be representing the complainants at the Hearing on 16 November. She explained that, despite numerous attempts to contact them by registered post, she had not received instructions from them to attend the Hearing. The solicitor went on to say that, as her registered letters to the complainants had not been returned, she was satisfied that they had been accepted and that the complainants were aware that they were required to attend the Hearing on 16 November.
On foot of the solicitor's letter, I made contact with Ms Elizabeth Cash who informed me that, as she herself was unsure whether the four complainants proposed to attend the Hearing, that she herself had decided not to attend.
Hearing on 16 November 2007
At 10.00 am on Friday 16 November 2007, the respondent arrived for the Hearing with a barrister. As there was no sign of the complainants, I indicated that I would defer commencement of the Hearing for 45 minutes in case they had been delayed.
When the complainants had not appeared by 10.45 am, I convened the Hearing as I was satisfied from their solicitor's statement that the complainants were aware of the Hearing date.
At the Hearing, I explained that, in cases under the Equal Status Acts, the onus was on the complainants to provide evidence establishing a prima facie case and that it was essential, in the interests of natural justice and fair procedures, that such evidence is provided in the presence of the respondents to afford them the opportunity to challenge any allegations made against them.
I also explained that, in the absence of Mary Cash, Mary Moloney, Elizabeth Connors & Mary Connors to give evidence and allow the respondents to cross-examine them, it would be my opinion thattheir complaint had failed and that a decision to this effect should issue.
At 11.00 am, I closed the Hearing stating that I proposed to issue a decision shortly on the lines of the above.
Decision
In complaints such as this, the onus is on the complainants to establish a prima facie case by appearing at the Hearing to give evidence. As the complainants in this case did not attend on 16 November 2007, and I am satisfied that they had received formal notice of the Hearing date, I find that their complaint fails and I find in favour of the respondent in the matter.
Brian O’Byrne
Equality Officer
6 February 2008