Joseph Donoghue
-v-
Noonan Services Limited
1. Dispute
The complainant referred a claim 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 Act 2000, the Director delegated the cases to me, Dolores Kavanagh, 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.
2 Summary of Complainant's Case.
2.1 The complainant states that he was visiting with his daughter, who was having an eyesight test carried out, at the Square shopping centre in Tallaght on 30th June 2003. He went outside the optician's premises to have a cigarette. While there he was approached by a member of the respondent's staff and was asked to leave the premises because he had been seen begging. A female worker from the optician's premises came out and asked what the problem was. She then invited the complainant back into the opticians to wait for his daughter. When the complainant's daughter was finished her eye test she left with the complainant and they were a followed out of the shopping centre by two security officers. The complainant was humiliated and degraded by the entire episode and feels that he was only approached because of his membership of the Traveller community.
3. Summary of Respondent's Case
3.1 The respondent states that its staff received a report that a man was seen begging on a particular level of the shopping centre. A security officer was dispatched to that level and confirmed by radio with central control that the complainant was the man in question. He approached the complainant and informed him that a complaint had been received to the effect that the complainant was begging from other customers. He asked the complainant to leave the premises. A female worker from the optician's shop came out and asked the complainant to come into the shop and wait for his daughter. The respondent accepted at that time that the complainant had business in the Square and allowed him to complete same in order to avoid an unnecessary fuss.
4 Prima Facie Case
I must first consider whether the existence of a prima facie case has been established by each of the complainants. There are three key elements which need to be established to show that a prima facie case exists. These are:
(a) Membership of a discriminatory ground (e.g. the Traveller community ground)
(b) Evidence of specific treatment of the complainant by the respondent
(c) Evidence that the treatment received by the complainant was less favourable than the treatment someone, not covered by that ground, would have received in similar circumstances.
If and when those elements are established, the burden of proof shifts, meaning that the difference in treatment is assumed to be discriminatory on the relevant ground. If they succeed in establishing prima facie evidence, the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination.
5. Prima Facie Case - Complainant
5.1 I am satisfied that the complainant is a member of the Traveller community in accordance with (a) at 4 above and this is not disputed by the respondent.
The parties agree as to the primary facts of this matter. Specifically, the parties agree that the complainant was approached by a security officer and was asked to leave the Square shopping centre as he had been seen begging. This satisfies (b) at 4 above.
In relation to key element (c) at 4 above the complainant states that he was approached and wrongly accused of begging because he was recognised by the respondent staff as a Traveller. The respondent states that the security officer who approached the complainant had no previous knowledge of the complainant and in approaching the complainant was acting on foot of a report to the effect that the complainant had been seen begging. The complainant's Traveller identity was not known to the respondent until he lodged a formal complaint in that regard.
In circumstances whereby both parties have provided equally compelling evidence in this matter, I am not satisfied that the complainant has established a prima facie case that he was discriminated against on the basis of his membership of the Traveller community.
This is not to imply in any manner that the complainant was engaging in begging at the Square shopping centre on the day in question. It is clear to me from the complainant's evidence that he was, and remains, humiliated and degraded by the experience on foot of an innocent visit to the shopping centre. However, the complainant has failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that his Traveller identity played a part in the entire incident.
6 Decision
6.1 I find that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the Traveller community ground.
__________________________
Dolores Kavanagh
Equality Officer
7 March, 2008