The Equality Tribunal
3 Clonmel Street
Dublin 2
Phone: 353-1-4774100
Fax: 353-1-4774141
E-mail: info@equalitytribunal.ie
Website:www.equalitytribunal.ie
Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2008
Equality Officer Decision
DEC-S2008- 103
Mr Harry Osemwegie
-v-
Grove Car Sales
Represented by Geraldine Costello and Associates Solicitors
File Ref: ES/2006-0030
Date of Issue: 21/11/2008
Delegation under the Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2008
This complaint was referred to the Director of the Equality Tribunal under the Equal Status Acts, 2000-2004. In accordance with her powers under Section 75 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and under the Equal Status Acts, 2000-2004, the Director delegated the complaint to me, Elaine Cassidy, 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, 2000-2008. On 21st July, 2008, my investigation commenced. As required by Section 25(1) and as part of my investigation, I proceeded to hearing on 14th November, 2008.
1. Dispute
This dispute concerns a claim by the complainant, Mr Osemwegie that he was discriminated against by the respondent on the grounds of race in terms of Section 3(1)(a) of the Equal Status Acts, 2000-2004 in not being provided with a service which is generally available to the public contrary to Section 6(1) of the Equal Status Acts, 2000-2004.
2. Summary of the Complainant’s Case
2.1 The complainant Mr Harry Osemwegie visited Grove Car Sales on 16 January 2006 because he was interested in buying a car. He approached an employee, Mr A to discuss his requirements, but before he had the chance to ask any questions about the cars, the employee told him that “we have no cheap cars here”. Mr Osemwegie asked the Mr A how he would know whether or not he wanted a cheap car. Mr A responded “some of your friends came here before with no intention to buy. If you are looking for a car to drive, you can try that one over there”. The complainant understood the reference to “your friends” as being black people in general. The complainant was offended and expressed this to the Mr A, expecting that he might change his attitude. However Mr A made it clear to him that he had no interest in discussing cars with him. The complainant said that Mr A gave him the clear impression that he believed black people were just time-wasters who could not afford the cars there. The complainant asked for the Mr A’s name and said he was going to complain. Mr A gave his name, and the complainant left the showroom.
2.2 A few days later the complainant wrote a letter to a local newspaper complaining about his treatment at the garage and the racism he had encountered. The letter was published and the complainant hoped that this would encourage a response from the garage owner, but it did not.
3. Summary of the Respondent’s Case
3.1 Neither the Respondent nor his legal representative attended the oral hearing. The respondent’s solicitor sent a letter to the Tribunal a few days previously indicating that her client had ceased to trade and that she could not contact him. She also called the Tribunal Secretariat the day before the hearing to pass on the same message. During this call she also indicated that she would not be attending the hearing. I am thus satisfied that she was informed of the hearing and had the opportunity to attend.
4. Conclusions and Decision of the Equality Officer
4.1 The Equality Officer must first consider whether the existence of a prima facie case has been established by the complainant. Section 38(A) of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2008 sets out the burden of proof which applies in a claim of discrimination. It requires the complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts upon which he/she can rely in asserting that prohibited conduct has occurred in relation to him/her. It is only where such a prima facie case has been established that the onus shifts to the respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination raised.
4.2 The complainant, who is black, claims to have been treated less favourably in the provision of a service, on account of his race. The complainant presented his case at the oral hearing in a balanced and credible manner and I accept his version of the events which took place. Therefore he has established a prima facie case of discrimination. As the respondent was not present to rebut the evidence, I find in favour of the complainant.
4.3 In considering the issue of redress in a race case, I am aware of the need to ensure the amount is effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Therefore I award the complainant 500 euros for upset suffered as a result of the treatment of the respondent.
Elaine Cassidy, Equality Officer,
21 November 2008