EQUAL STATUS ACTS
DECISION NO: DEC-S2017-044
PARTIES:
Rosemarie Mongan v
(represented by Howard Synnott)
AND
Donal & Martha Duffy Limited t/a SuperValu Edgeworthstown
(represented by J. A. Shaw and Company)
File Reference: et-154419-es-15
Date of Issue: November 2017
Keywords: Equal Status Acts 2000-2015 - Section 3(2)(i), Traveller ground -discrimination - no jurisdiction - Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003
DISPUTE
This case concerns a complaint by Rosemarie Mongan (the “Complainant”) that she was discriminated against on the grounds of membership of the travelling community, within the meaning of Section Equal Status Acts 2000 - 2015 (the “Acts”) by Donal & Martha Duffy Limited t/a SuperValu Edgeworthstown (the “Respondent”), contrary to Section 5 of the Acts and harassed her contrary to section 11 of the Acts.
1. The Complainant referred her complaint under the Acts to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on the 13th March 2015. A submission was received from the Complainant on the 18th March 2016. A submission from the Respondent was received on the date of the hearing. In accordance with her powers the Acts the Director General delegated the case to me Marguerite Buckley an Adjudication officer for investigation, hearing and decision and for exercise of other relevant functions as the Director under Part III of the Equal Status Acts, 2000-2015. On this date, my investigation commenced. As required by Section 25 of the Acts and as part of my investigation I proceeded to hold a hearing of the case on the 29th May 2017.
1. Dispute
The dispute concerns a claim by Ms. Rosemarie Mongan (hereafter "the complainant") that she was discriminated against by the Donal & Martha Duffy t/a SuperValu Edgeworthstown(hereafter "the respondent") in that she was refused service in the supermarket of the Respondent on the grounds of her membership of the Travelling Community in terms of Sections 5 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000-2015.
Preliminary Application:
Both parties attended the hearing on the 29th May 2017.
At the hearing, the Respondent submitted that in accordance with S.19 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003, the complaints were outside of my jurisdiction. They submitted that the supermarket is a is a licensed premises with the benefit of a Spirit, Beer and Wine Retailers Off licence.
A copy of the off -licence was produced with the District Court area noted as Longford on the face of it.
Both parties were given the opportunity to provide written submissions in relation to this application and same were duly lodged.
Decision:
A retailer’s off-licence allows for the sale of spirits, beer and wine for consumption off the premises. This type of licence can only be obtained by way of an application to the District Court.
Section 19(2) of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003 provides that a person who claims that prohibited conduct has been directed against him or her on, or at the point of entry to, licensed premises may apply to the District Court for redress.
Prohibited conduct is defined as discrimination against, or sexual harassment or harassment of, or permitting the sexual harassment or harassment of a person in contravention of Part II (Discrimination and Related Activities) of the Equal Status Acts on, or at the point of entry to, licensed premises.
A licence is defined as a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor, whether granted on production or without production of a certificate of the Circuit Court or District Court
A licensed premises is defined as a premises in respect of which a licence is in force and, in relation to a licensee, means the licensed premises of the licensee.
I note that in the definitions section of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003 there is a separate and distinct definition of bar which is defined as “bar” means any open bar or any part of licensed premises exclusively or mainly used for the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor and includes any counter or barrier across which drink is or can be served to the public.
I further note that the Complainant gave evidence that the prohibited conduct took place in the off-licence area of the supermarket and related to the purchase of beer on an earlier occasion.
I have completed my investigation of this complaint and I make the following decision in accordance with Section 25 of the Act. I find that I do not have jurisdiction to deal with this claim by reason of section 19 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003 in that the where the prohibited conduct is alleged to have taken place is a licenced premises under the terms of that Act.
Dated: 23 November, 2017
______________________________
Marguerite Buckley
Adjudication Officer