Walter O'Sullivan, Eileen O'Sullivan, Christopher Stokes and Kathleen Stokes
-v-
Larry Tomkins Bar
(Represented by Mr. Dermot Sheehan B.L. acting
on instructions from AJ O'Brien & Co., Solicitors)
1. Dispute
1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by the complainants, Mr. Walter O'Sullivan, Mrs. Ellen O'Sullivan, Mr. Christopher Stokes and Mrs. Kathleen Stokes that they were discriminated against by the respondent on the grounds of their membership of the Traveller community in terms of Sections 3(1)(a) and 3(2)(i) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 in not being provided with a service which is generally available to the public contrary to Section 5(1) of the Equal Status Act, 2000.
2. Background
2.1 These cases were assigned to me on 1st November, 2007. Letters were issued to both parties to the complaint on 1st November, 2007 notifying them that the hearing of the complaint was scheduled to take place in Cork on 17th January, 2008. In the case of the complainants this notice was sent to the addresses provided on their complaint referral forms. I am satisfied that valid notification of the hearing was made to the complainants. The complainants were requested to confirm attendance prior to the hearing but failed to do so. On the date of the hearing the respondent and a number of its witnesses were in attendance. None of the complainants were in attendance on the date of the hearing.
2.2 At 10:30 a.m. on the date of the hearing, I indicated to the respondent's representative that I would defer the commencement of the hearing for 30 minutes in order for the complainants to make contact with the Tribunal or to arrive late if they had been unavoidably delayed. Following this period of time there was no appearance from the complainants and I contacted the Equality Tribunal Offices in Dublin by telephone to check if any communication had been received from the complainants regarding their failure to attend the hearing. It was confirmed to me that no communication had been received from any of the complainants. I also confirmed with the reception desk of the hearing venue that no messages had been received regarding this case.
2.3 At this point I reconvened the hearing and explained to the respondent that in cases under the Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2004, the onus is on the complainants to provide evidence establishing a prima facie case of discrimination on the ground complained of if the complaint is to succeed. In theses cases the complainants did not attend the hearing and thus could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination. The respondent, therefore, had no case to answer.
3. Decision
3.1 On the basis of the foregoing, I find that the complainants have failed to establish a prima-facie case of discrimination on the Traveller community ground and accordingly, their complaints are dismissed. I therefore find for the respondent in this case (DEC-S2008-009).
Enda Murphy
Equality Officer
25th January, 2008