The Equality Tribunal
3 Clonmel Street
Dublin 2.
Phone: 353 -1- 4774100
Fax: 353-1- 4774150
E-mail: info@equalitytribunal.ie
Website: www.@equalitytribunal.ie
Equal Status Acts 2000-2008
Decision
DEC-S2011-042
Louise Ward
(represented by Aisling Wall BL instructed by W.B. Gavin & Co. Solicitors)
v.
Menlo Park Hotel
(represented by V. P. Shields Solicitors)
File Reference: ES/2009/076
Date of Issue: 6th October 2011
Decision
DEC-S2011-042
Louise Ward
(represented by Aisling Wall BL instructed by W.B. Gavin & Co. Solicitors)
v.
Menlo Park Hotel
(represented by V. P. Shields Solicitors)
Key words
Equal Status Act, 2000 - 2008, Direct discrimination, Section 3(1) - less favourable treatment - Traveller community, 3(2)(i) - refusal to provide a service, Section 5(1), prima facie case.
Delegation under Equal Status Acts, 2000-2008
The complainant referred a complaint to the Director of the Equality Tribunal under the Equal Status Act 2000-2008 on the 2nd July 2009. On the 26th of April 2011, in accordance with his powers under section 75 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and under the Equal Status Acts, the Director delegated the case to me, Marian Duffy, 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. On this date my investigation commenced. A submission was received from the complainant on the 2nd July 2009 and 5th of March 2010 and from the respondent on 6th January 2010. As required by Section 25(1) and as part of my investigation, I proceeded to hearing on the on the 10th of June 2011.
1. Dispute
1.1 The dispute concerns a claim by the complainant that she was discriminated against on the Traveller community ground in relation to the cancellation of a booking for her wedding reception. The complainant alleges that the respondent discriminated against her in terms of Sections 3(1)(a) and 3(2)(i) of the Equal Status and contrary to Section 5(1) of that Act. The respondent denies that the complainant was discriminated against and submits that there was no booking made.
2 Complainant's Case
2.1 The complainant submitted that she attended the respondent's hotel on the 1st of April 2009 to book the hotel for her wedding reception which was going to take place on the 7th of April 2010. She was accompanied by the groom Mr. F now her husband and her future mother-in-law Mrs. F. The complainant was the only person in the group who is a member of the Traveller community. Mr. F telephoned the hotel earlier in the day to enquire about a particular date and he was told that the date of the 7th of April was available. On entering the hotel they were shown around by a woman called Ms. T who showed them the bridal suite and the function room and discussed details such as numbers attending and she also gave them the name of a band. They confirmed again that the 7th of April 2010 was available. Ms. T took down all the details in a book which she carried around with her. At reception she took contact details from them all. Mrs. F offered to pay a deposit but it was declined. Ms.T informed them that she was not allowed to accept deposits but the General Manager would arrange to collect the deposit on her return from leave. They all understood that they had a confirmed booking. Mrs. F telephoned the hotel a number of times to make arrangements to pay the deposit. She said that the attitude towards her changed and she was eventually told by Ms. T that the hotel did not do midweek weddings. She was also told that a new manager had been employed and he had taken a booking for the 7th of April 2010. The complainant said that she was very upset to learn that the booking was no longer available to her; she particularly wanted that date because it was her grandmother's birthday. Mrs. F said in evidence that she believed that the date of the 7th of April was still available. She telephoned the hotel on two occasions under a different name and was told that the 7th of April 2010 was available for a wedding reception. Her daughter also attended a wedding in the respondent's hotel on a Tuesday and she does not accept that the hotel had a policy of not having midweek receptions. It was submitted on behalf of the complainant that she was treated less favourably than another person would have been treated because she is a member of the Traveller community.
3 Respondent's Case
3.1 The respondent denies that the complainant was discriminated against and submitted that the complainant did not make a booking as there was no booking form filled out. The General Manager said that at the time she had sole responsibility for wedding bookings. She was absent on bereavement leave and a trainee assistant manager at the time showed the complainant around the hotel. The usual procedure is to give the bride and groom a wedding pack and show them around on a first visit. She said that any duty manager would do a show around but the booking would have to be done through her. She said that it was not usual for a couple to book the venue on a first visit. The respondent usually holds wedding receptions on a Friday or Saturday and on occasion they would hold a small wedding during the week. They also have a high level of corporate events which take place during the week. The hotel is unable to cater for large weddings and corporate events at the one time. It was submitted on the respondent's behalf that there was an error made and that the venue was booked for the 7th of April 2010. The venue was booked by a corporate client for a conference and this happened because there was a breakdown in communications. The trainee manager Ms. T did not put the date in the book. It was submitted that what occurred was not discrimination but human error and in any event the respondent could not have discriminated against the complainant because they were not aware that she was a member of the Traveller community. The GM said that she did everything possible to sort out the matter once she became aware of it.
4. Conclusion of Equality Officer
4.1 The matter referred for investigation turns upon whether or not the complainant was discriminated against contrary to Section 3(1)(a) and 3(2)(i) of the Equal Status Act and in terms of Section 5 (1) of that Act. In reaching my decision I have taken into account all the submissions, both oral and written, made to me by the parties in the course of my investigation into the complaint.
Section 3(1)(a) provides, inter alia, that discrimination shall be taken to occur where:
"On any of the grounds specified... (in this case the Traveller community ground).... A person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated. Section 3(2)(g) provides that: as between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds ... are ... (i) that one is a member of the Traveller community and the other is not (the ''Traveller community ground''),"
and Section
5. -- (1) provides: " A person shall not discriminate in disposing of goods to the public generally or a section of the public or in providing a service, whether the disposal or provision is for consideration or otherwise and whether the service provided can be availed of only by a section of the public".
The burden of proof is set out in Section 38A which provides:
38A. -- (1)" Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a person from which it may be presumed that prohibited conduct has occurred in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary."
4.2 A person making an allegation of discrimination under the Equal Status Acts must first establish a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment. Once a prima facie case of discrimination has been established by the complainant, the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent to rebut the presumption of discrimination.
4.3 The complainant submits that she was discriminated against on the Traveller community ground when the booking she believes she had made for her wedding reception was cancelled for no good reason. The respondent's case is that the booking had not been made at the initial visit and the hotel had booked in another event for the day that the complainant required for her wedding reception.
4.4 I am satisfied that the complainant is a Traveller and is covered by the Equal Status Acts. The next matter for consideration is whether she was refused access to a service contrary to Section 5(1). I note that the complainant's witnesses verified that there was a firm booking for the wedding reception made with the assistant manager on the 1st April 2009. I also note that all the witness stated that the assistant manager took details of names and addresses and contact details and wrote them into a book which she carried around with her. I also note that the respondent accepts that the complainant and her witnesses visited the hotel and were shown around and they discussed the availability of the 7th of April 2010 for the wedding reception. They also accept that contact details of the complainant and her party were taken but the booking form was not filled out. I am satisfied from the evidence that the complainant had booked the venue on the 1st of April 2010 and that booking was not recorded for whatever reason and another booking was taken for the same day. I found the evidence presented by the complainant and her witnesses very credible and I have concluded, therefore, that the complainant was discriminated against. I find therefore that the complainant has established a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment. I am satisfied that the reason the complainant's booking was not proceed with by the respondent was connected to her membership of the Traveller community. I find the respondent has failed to rebut the prima facie case established. I am satisfied that the complainant was treated less favourably that a non Traveller would have been treated in similar circumstances.
5. Decision
5.1 I find that the complainant was discriminated against on the Traveller community ground contrary to the Equal Status Acts. Under section 27(1) of that Act redress may be ordered where a finding is in favour of the complainant. Section 27(1) provides that:
"the types of redress for which a decision of the Director under section 25 may provide are either or both of the following as may be appropriate in the circumstances:
(a) an order for compensation for the effects of the discrimination;
or
(b) an order that a person or persons specified in the order take a course of action which is so specified."
5.2 Under the above Section the maximum amount of compensation I can award is €6,349. In considering the amount of compensation that I should award I have taken into account the effects of the discrimination had on the complainant. I order the respondent to pay to the complainant the sum of €2,000 (two thousand euro) to compensate her for the distress and humiliation experienced by her as well as the loss of the amenity to her.
___________________
Marian Duffy
Equality Officer
6th October 2011