Margaret Connors on behalf of her son Michael
(Represented by Cormac Forrestal BL on instructions from
Augustus Cullen & Sons Solicitors)
V
Supervalu, Wicklow
(Represented by Kevin Staunton BL on instructions from
Patrick O'Toole Solicitors)
Summary of the Complainant's case
Michael Connors, along with two friends, entered Supervalu on 17th July 2003. They were on their lunch break and purchased some hot food. They paid at the checkout and left the shop. The manager followed them and asked Michael for his receipt to show he had paid for the items. Michael refused. After pursuing the matter for about five minutes the manager returned to the shop. During this five minutes Michael was very embarrassed as a number of school friends were there in uniform and witnessed the incident as did some hurling friends and the two friends who were with him. Michael was attending a Fas course at the time with these friends who are also Travellers. The two Travellers in his company were not asked to present their receipts. One of them, named Andy Berry, presented evidence at the hearing. He stated that, while all three of the group were in casual clothes, he had been ashamed of Michael because of his "dirty" appearance. He was also embarrassed that so much attention was drawn to them. The complainant and his witness denied that they had been acting suspiciously in the store.
Summary of the Respondent's Case
The respondent did not appear at the hearing and was represented instead by Mr. Kevin Staunton, BL. His cross-examination of the complainant and his witness referred to the following:
The store is relatively central
The likelihood that Travellers used the store all the time,
The complainant had used the store before without difficulty,
That only the complainant had been asked to present a receipt even though the two with him were also Travellers,
That the complainant would have settled the matter quickly and without fuss, thereby reducing the embarrassment, had he produced the receipt,
The suggestion that the group had been in the store longer than they indicated and that they had been acting suspiciously.
No direct evidence was presented on behalf of the respondent.
Conclusions of the Equality Officer
I am satisfied that the complainant is a member of the Traveller community. I am also satisfied that the complainant was served in the store on 17th July 2003 and was subsequently asked to present his receipt. In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the Traveller ground the complainant must show that the reason he was stopped was because he was a Traveller and not because of any other reason.
The evidence given indicates that all three of the complainant's group were members of the Traveller community but only one of them was asked to produce his receipt. The evidence is that the complainant was unkempt in that his appearance was "dirty" and his friend was ashamed of him. Therefore what singled him out from his group was his appearance. Had all three of the group been asked to produce receipts, or had there been no distinguishing feature about the complainant then it is possible that an inference might arise that the reason for the manager making the request of him was because he was a Traveller. Such an inference can only arise where there is no other reasonable explanation for singling out the individual. However, since the manager approached only one and since this one individual was distinguishable from the rest of his group for reasons other than his membership of the Traveller community, then I am satisfied that the complainant has failed to establish that the reason he was stopped was because of that membership. To conclude otherwise would be to accept that the stereotypical model of a member of the Traveller community is of persons who are unkempt and I do not accept that this is the case. I find that the complainant has failed to establish that the treatment he received was due to his membership of the Traveller community and therefore he has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the Traveller ground.
Other Issues
Counsel for the respondent informed me that his instructions were that the respondent did not appear at the hearing because he was nervous. I find this totally unacceptable. He should be aware that had I found that discrimination had occurred, his lack of participation in this instance would have been fatal in respect of any defence of the case.
Alternatively, had the complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination I would have considered his ongoing reticence in the situation to produce the receipt to have greatly impacted on the effects of the discrimination. It is the effects of discrimination for which any award under the Act is made.
Decision DEC-S2008-020
I find that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the Traveller ground.
Bernadette Treanor
Equality Officer
7th March 2008