Complainant

Respondent

Parties

William Quilligan

Fota Wildlife Park Clg

Representatives

Robert Cussen & Son Solicitors

Ronan Daly Jermyn Solicitors

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000

CA-00014587-001

27/09/2017

The Complainant is a member of the Traveller community. The Complainant claims that he was discriminated against by the Respondent on the grounds of his membership of the Traveller community in terms of Section 3(1) and 3(2)(i) of the Equal Status Acts and contrary to Section 5(1) of the Acts in relation to the Respondent preventing him from boarding the Fota Wildlife Tour train.

The ES1 form was sent to the Respondent on 23rd June 2017. The ES2 was issued on 10th August 2017 by the Respondent.

The Complainant submits that he is a member of the Traveller community as defined under Section 3 of the Equal Status Act, 2000. He submits that on Saturday 17th June 2017 he attended the Respondent Park with his wife and four children. During the course of their visit to the park the Complainant approached a member of staff as he wanted to bring his youngest child on the Park tour train. He alleges that he was told by the staff member that the train was full. He then waited beside the train with his daughter to watch it depart. The Complainant alleges that while waiting beside the train he observed a man purchase a ticket for himself and his daughter and he boarded the train. This man and his daughter were allowed to board the train even though the Complainant was refused permission to board the train with his daughter only a short time beforehand. The Complainant was shocked and upset at the incident which was a source of great embarrassment to him. The Complainant submits that his daughter who was eagerly looking forward to the ride of the tour train was left distraught and upset. The member of staff apologised and a further meeting with the manager of the park was held where the Complainant voiced his complaint in relation to the manner in which he and his daughter were treated. The incident took place in front of a large number of people who were in the vicinity of the tour train.

The Complainant gave evidence at the hearing. He confirmed that he and his family had visited the Park previously on one occasion and they enjoyed the visit. However, at the time they did not use the train. He submitted that on 17th June 2017 he visited the Park with his wife and four children who were 13, 12, 10 and 4 years of age at the time. The Complainant insisted that only his youngest child was with him while he spoke with Ms EH. The Complainant argued that he carried his daughter as they did not have a buggy/pram. The rest of his family were some distance away from the train. He said that he was embarrassed and felt ashamed. He stated that as his daughter was upset and crying they sat down watching the train. He asked Ms EH what was the difference between him and the other man. The Complainant stated that he went to the office and spoke to Mr TO. He had Ms EH’s name and Mr TO sent for her. He claimed that Ms EH told him that she had made a mistake and she understood that what she did was wrong. The Complainant stated that he told Mr TO that he was discriminated against. Mr TO offered the family a private tour, which the Complainant declined as he felt it would be more embarrassing for them. The Complainant claimed that his complaint was only against Ms EH and he never spoke to Mr LD. In cross-examination, the Complainant denied that he was offered two places by Ms EH. He also denied seeing that another man and two other people with a child approached Mr LD and they were offered the same two places, which they accepted. The Complainant agreed that he did not specifically tell Ms EH that he was a member of Traveller community but insisted that she would have known. He also denied that he asked Mr LD for his name.

The Complainant’s wife gave evidence. Mrs Quilligan corroborated the Complainant’s version of events. She confirmed that she visited the Park with her husband and their four children. She confirmed that the child no longer used the buggy. Mrs Quilligan stated that they had no intention of getting on the train but the youngest child got tired from walking. They walked along the train and saw the train passing. The Complainant asked how could they get in and was told to go to the train stop. They all walked towards the stop and the train was there when they arrived. The Complainant approached the train with the youngest child. Mrs Quilligan and the other children kept walking and were some distance away. She did not hear the conversation and did not notice that something was wrong until another person boarded the train. Mrs Quilligan stated that although the daughter was very upset she accepted that there was no room. The fact that someone else boarded the train caused her more upset. Mrs Quilligan stated that Ms EH told her husband that she made a mistake, and he then walked toward the family and they walked together to the manager’s office. The Complainant and his youngest child entered the office while Mrs Quilligan and the rest of the family stayed outside. Mrs Quilligan stated that she did not hear any of the interactions but her husband told her that Ms EH was called to the meeting and she said what she has done was wrong. The Complainant also told his wife that he was offered a tour but because it would be even more embarrassing he declined.

In her closing remarks, the solicitor for the Complainant stated that it was clear that the Complainant was refused to board the train while somebody in a comparable situation was given the seat. She also pointed out that there was inconsistency in the Respondent’s witnesses’ recollection of the events. She noted that it was disingenuous to claim that the staff members of the Respondent were not aware of the Complainant’s status but she accepted that Mr LD, as a non-Irish national could possibly have not realised that the Complainant is a member of the Traveller community. She acknowledged that Mr TO gave the Complainant a good hearing and offered to rectify the matter but pointed out that the evidence of Ms EH was not credible.

The Respondent rejects the claim. The Respondent submits that on 17th June 2017 the Complainant purchased six admission tickets for two adults and four children. While in the park the visitors can avail of a train tour around the park for a fee of €1 for a single ticket, or €2 for a return ticket. The train runs approximately every 30 minutes with the last train at 5.30pm. At approximately 5.15pm, Ms EH, train conductor and Mr LD, train driver were approached by the Complainant to enquire about getting in the train. The Complainant was accompanied by a woman with a pram, two young girls and a young boy. Ms EH apologised and explained that unfortunately there wasn’t enough seating on the train for all of them and the Complainant walked away from the vicinity of the train. As the train was due to depart at 5.30pm, a different man approached the train driver, Mr LD, to enquire if there was space on the train for him and his daughter, who was a toddler and who could sit on his lap. Mr LD allowed the man to board the train on the basis that he knew there was sufficient seating for that customer. The Complainant having witnessed the other man boarding the train, re-approached Ms EH enquiring why he hadn’t been let on the train. Ms EH explained that it would not have been possible to seat him and his family, as there were not sufficient seats available. The Complainant insisted that he could have sat his youngest daughter in the seat on her own, but Ms EH confirmed that children under the age of 12 are not permitted to ride the train alone. Ms EH apologised once again that they were not in a position to accommodate the Complainant and the five people accompanying him on this train. The Respondent submits that the Complainant then said that “it was a disgrace”, pointed his finger at Ms EH and asked for her name, as he wanted to make a complaint to management. Ms EH provided her name and informed the Complainant that the office was at the main entrance. It is the Respondent’s position that the Complainant raised his voice during the conversation. The Complainant also asked Mr LD for his name and walked away from the area. At approximately 5.30pm, the Complainant outlined the nature of his Complaint to the Operations Manager, Mr TO. The Complainant maintained that Ms EH refused to allow him and his daughter on the train, as the train was full to capacity and that there was no room left. The Complainant said he subsequently saw two others being offered seats. As a gesture of goodwill, Mr TO offered the Complainant the opportunity to have the train run privately for him and his family that evening but the Complainant declined. He was provided with a full refund for the cost of the admission tickets.

The Respondent submits that it is the policy of the Respondent that every person must be seated on the train tour. There are 59 seats on the train and for health and safety reasons, it is not permissible to allow more than 59 people on the train at any one time. Standing is not permitted and buggies must be folded prior to boarding the train. There was simply not enough seating on the train to accommodate the Complainant and his family. The Respondent submits that it is a normal practice in all cases to follow the policy, without exceptions. The requirement for every person to be seated on the train is a blanket policy in the Respondent park. It is in place to ensure the health and safety of every passenger (copy of the Respondent’s Health and Safety Policy and Safety Statement were exhibited). The Train Risk Assessment (exhibited) confirms that all passengers must be seated at all times and no unaccompanied children under the age of 12 should be allowed ride on the train. The Respondent submits that the actions of the staff on 17th June 2017 were in keeping with the Park’s policies and were in no way related to the Complainant’s membership of the Traveller Community.

The Respondent submits that Ms EH and Mr LD were not aware of the Complainant’s status as a member of the Traveller Community. The Respondent submits that it is very cognisant of its obligations and does not tolerate discrimination of any form in the workplace. The Respondent presented its communication policy which sets out its no tolerance approach to discrimination. All staff members, including Ms EH and Mr LD have received a copy of the employee handbook, which sets out the above policies.

The Respondent presented copies of written statements from the three staff members in question. Outlined below is a brief summary of the main points.

Written Statement of Mr TO, Operations Manager Mr TO in his written statement outlined the events which took place on 17th June at approximately 5.30pm in his office as follows: The Complainant and his daughter who was approximately six years were brought in to his office by a staff member. The Complainant outlined the nature of his complaint. The Complainant maintained that Ms EH refused to allow him and his daughter on the train as the train was full to capacity. After that the Complainant saw two people given seats on the train. Mr TO told the Complainant he would discuss the matter with the two staff members who were operating the train. The Complainant requested a full refund. Mr TO offered to put the train on so the Complainant and his daughter could have a tour of the park. The Complainant declined. The Complainant asked for the name of the girl on the train and Mr TO’s name. He then asked for the names to be written down for him, which Mr TO did. Mr TO gave a full refund to the Complainant. Mr TO later spoke to Mr LD, the driver and Ms EH. They told him that the train had been busy and that it was the last train on the day and the Complainant was offered two seats one for him and one for his daughter. The Complainant then went over to a group of people he was with and began talking to them and whilst this was happening two other customers availed of the seats.

Written Statement of Ms EH, train conductor Ms EH outlines the events as follows: On 17th June 2017 while securing the train for departure and having emptied the queue line she was approached by the Complainant. He was accompanied by his family, two young girls dressed in pink, a young boy dressed in blue and a woman who Ms EH believed was pushing a pram. The Complainant inquired about getting on the train. There was only one seat left on the train, next to a woman and her child. Ms EH told the Complainant that there would not be room to let them on. She apologised for the lack of space and explained that this was the last run of the train for the day. The Complainant and his family left the vicinity of the train. Ms EH was unaware that the Complainant was a member of the Traveller community. As they were approaching their departure time, 5.30pm, Ms EH decided to do a quick tally of the money they collected that day. As she was doing it, the train was approached by another man, who asked if he could take the last seat available and sit his toddler, who was no more than two years of age, on his lap. Ms EH’s colleague said this was no problem and allowed him on. The Complainant, having seen this approached Ms EH again, and demanded to know why she hadn’t let him on. Ms EH explained that there was only room for one person and that it would not have been possible to fit his family on board. Raising his voice at her, the Complainant insisted he could have sat his youngest child in that seat and she explained that children under the age of twelve were not permitted to ride alone. Ms EH apologised again for not having space to seat them. The Complainant then told her, with a raised voice, that this was a disgrace, he pointed his finger at her, and asked for her name as he wanted to bring this to the attention of management. Ms EH provided her first name and informed the Complainant that the office was at the main entrance. The Complainant then walked away.

Written Statement of Mr LD, train driver Mr LD in his written statement asserts that on 17th June 2017 while securing the train for departure he was approached by the Complainant and his family of five or more. He enquired about getting on the train. At that stage there was only 2 places left on the train and Mr LD told the Complainant that he could have those. The Complainant replied that he had more people with him and proceeded to walk away and sat on an adjacent bench. Following this another family approached Mr LD and asked to be seated, Mr LD offered the same 2 seats which they took. As soon as this happened the Complainant approached Mr LD and asked the conductor Ms EH for her name and also asked Mr LD for his name as he was going to complain to the manager. Mr LD gave the Complainant his name and proceeded to start the train, Mr LD asserts that he did not think that the Complainant was a member of the Traveller community as he would generally not recognise a member of the Traveller community.

The three staff members gave also direct evidence at the hearing.

Direct Evidence of Mr TO, Operations Manager Mr TO outlined the details of the Respondent’s operation. He summarised the Safety Statement and Risk Management in respect of the operation of the train. Mr TO denied that Ms EH was in the management office at the time of the Complainant’s visit. He pointed out that the normal procedure is to deal with the Complainant and then talk to the staff. However, Mr TO was not sure whether he took details of the Complainant to revert to him with an outcome of his investigation. He noted that he probably did.   He also stated that the Complainant did not state that he was discriminated against or/and that he was a member of the Traveller community until the ES1 form was received. When cross-examined Mr TO accepted that the complaint was against Ms EH only and that Mr LD was not mentioned. He also stated that he did not know from looking and speaking to the Complainant that he was a member of Traveller community. However, Mr TO subsequently noted that by the end of the meeting he would he would have known. He noted that his offer of train tour was a genuine one and did not accept the Complainant’ solicitor opinion that it would only add insult to the injury.

Direct evidence of Ms EH, conductor Ms EH confirmed that it is her sixth summer season working for the Respondent. Ms EH stated that the Complainant approached the train and asked the driver about the stop. The other family members were just behind him. Ms EH stated that her recollection is that he was accompanied by his family members and that the Complainant used the word “we”, he never said that only he and the youngest child would like to board the train. Ms EH stated that there was one seat free in the front and therefore there was not enough room to accommodate the Complainant and his family. She said that after her conversation with the Complainant, Mr LD the driver was approached by someone else and they boarded the train. At this stage the Complainant came back to her, he was quite angry, she explained to him that there was not enough of seats for the family. The Complainant told her that the daughter could have gone on her own but Ms EH explained that children under the age of 12 must be accompanied by an adult. Ms EH stated that to her recollection they were all together, the Complainant’s wife was behind him and there was a pram. Ms EH said that she was not aware that the Complainant was a member of the Traveller community, she deals with many people with different accents and had no suspicion as to the status of the Complainant. Her decision was based only on seats availability and the number of people with the Complainant. In respect of the Complainant’s meeting with the Manager, Ms EH confirmed that she was not in the room during the meeting. She confirmed that she said to the Complainant that she was sorry for what happened but not that she made a mistake. She apologised that here was not enough room to accommodate the Complainant and his family. In cross-examination Ms EH explained to the Complainant’s solicitor the matter of the number of seats available. She confirmed that she only saw one seat available. However, she understands that later a woman moved a child on her lap and a second seat became available. Ms EH insisted that her actions were not discriminatory. She did not have enough seats for the whole family and the Complainant did not make it clear that he wanted to get on the train with one child only.

Direct evidence of Mr LD, driver Mr LD submitted that the Complainant was walking with the family and approached him while the train was moving slowly inquiring about boarding the train. Mr LD explained to him that they need to go to the stop. He stated that before the family got to the stop a number of people have already boarded the train. Mr LD went to the coffee shop to get himself a cup of coffee. He noticed the Complainant, his wife with a pram and three or four children by the train. He could not hear the conversation with Ms EH and by the time he returned to the train Mrs Quilligan and the children walked away. He stated that then the Complainant approached him and Mr LD told him that he could take the two seats. Mr LD explained that a row of seats could sit two adults and three kids. He saw that a woman and two children were seating and noted that two more people could be seated. The Complainant however said that he wanted his whole family to be seated. Mr LD stated that 2-3 minutes later another family of 2-3 adults and a child approached him. Mr LD decided that the eldest person (a female in her eighties) and the youngest child could board the train. The rest of the family were not allowed to board the train and they walked. Mr LD confirmed that he took the payment from these customers and Ms EH had no interaction with them at all. Before the train started moving the Complainant ran towards Ms EH and started shouting at her. He also asked for Mr LD’s name. Mr LD clarified that he did not refuse the Complainant access to the train, he offered him seats for one adult and one child. Mr LD said that Mr TO spoke to him about the incident at about 6.20pm. He told the manager that he offered 1 adult and 1 child seat to the Complainant. He was later told about the Complainant’s letter and was asked for a statement. He noted that, as he has poor English, he gave his statement to the General Manager and asked him to type it up for him. Mr LD emphasised that he had no idea that the Complainants was a member of the Traveller community. In cross-examination, Mr LD clarified to the Complainant’s solicitor that he did not hear the conversation between Ms EH and the Complainant. However, he saw all members of the family there. He confirmed that he offered the Complainant seats for two and the Complainant declined. He also confirmed that he did see a pram. He verified again that a row of 4 seats can accommodate 5 people, two adults and three children and therefore there were two places available to the Complainant. Mr LD clarified also that the Complainant asked for his and Ms EH’s names and that he spoke with the Manager about the matter later that evening.

The solicitor for the Respondent, in her closing remarks emphasised the relevance of the Respondent’s health and safety and equal treatment policies. She noted that the Complainant has visited the Park before. It is the Respondent’s view that the only reason the Complainant was not permitted to board the train was that Ms EH was under the impression that the whole family wanted to board the train and there was not enough of seats for them. The Respondent accepts that subsequently Mrs Quilligan moved away from the train but it is the Respondent’s view that it was reasonable to assume that the whole family wanted to board the train. The solicitor noted that Ms EH is 21 years of age and due to her young age and lack of experience she would not instantly recognise a member of the Traveller community. On the other hand, Mr TO who is quite older admitted that at some stage during the conversation with the Complainant he suspected the Complainant could be a member of the Traveller community. The solicitor argued that the Complainant did not show that he was treated less favourably than another person in comparable situation. The Complainant has no evidence that the persons who were allowed on the train were not members of the Traveller community. The Complainant accepted that it was a busy day and it was the last train on the day he attempted to board. The solicitor argued that the Complainant did not establish a prima facie case and it was, at most a misunderstanding.

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 2000-2015 and in terms of Section 5(1) of that Act. Section 3(1)(a) provides, inter alia, that discrimination shall be taken to occur where: “A person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified... (in this case the Traveller community ground). Section 3(2)(i) 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”)”. Section 5(1) of the Act 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". Section 38A of the Acts sets out the burden of proof which applies to a claim of discrimination under the Equal Status Acts and requires the Complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts from which the discrimination alleged may be inferred. It is only where such a prima facie case of discrimination has been established that the onus shifts to the Respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination raised. In making my decision, I have taken into account all of the evidence, written and oral, made to me by the parties to the case. The issue for consideration in the instant case is whether the Complainant was prevented from boarding the train on the day in question on the grounds of his membership of the Traveller community contrary to the Equal Status Acts. First, I must consider whether the Complainant has succeeded in establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. In order to do so, the Complainant must satisfy three criteria in relation to his complaints. He must (1) establish he is covered by a discriminatory ground (in this case the Traveller community ground); (2) it must be established, on balance that the specific treatment alleged by the Complainant actually occurred and (3) there must be evidence that the treatment of the Complainant was less favourable than the treatment that was or would have been afforded to another person in similar circumstances. The standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities.

In this case, it is not a fact in dispute that the Complainant is a member of the Traveller community thus satisfying the first of the criteria outlined above. Neither was it in dispute that the Complainant was not permitted to board the Respondent’s train on 17th June 2017. This is sufficient to satisfy the second of the three criteria set out above. In relation to the third of the criteria, the claim of discriminatory treatment in the present case is based on the events that took place during the course of the Complainants' visit to the Respondent’s wildlife park on 17th June 2017. The reason and the facts surrounding the incident are in dispute. The Complainant alleges that he was treated less favourably as he and his daughter were refused access to the train by the Respondent staff member due to his membership of the Traveller community while another person with a child was seated on the train. The Complainant argues that he was refused to board the train with his daughter because of his easily recognisable membership of the Traveller community. The Respondent, on the other hand rejects this claim in its entirety and argues that the reason for the Complainant not being permitted to board the train was that there were not enough seats for the Complainant’s family of six.

I note that the submissions of the Parties differ significantly in many aspects and it is not possible to reconcile the discrepancies. Accordingly, I will be making my findings on the balance of probabilities. Firstly, while I recognise that Mr LD is a non-Irish national and he might not have been aware of the Complainant’s status as a member of the Traveller community I do not accept the Respondent’s assertion that Ms EH would not have been aware of it or, at least suspect so. Secondly, I note the discrepancies in the Respondent’s staff members’ statements in relation to whether there was one or two seats available and whether a man with a child or an elderly woman with a child were permitted to board the train. In respect of the former I note that the staff members used words “seat” and “place”. While Ms EH in her written statement noted that “there was only one seat left”, Mr LD in his written statement referred to “two places left on the train” and then “I offered the same 2 seats…”. Mr LD explained to the hearing that a row of 4 seats can accommodate up to 5 people, two adults and three children. Mr LD notes that a woman with two children were seated. Therefore, two places, one for an adult and one for a child were offered to the Complainant.   I also note that both Ms EH and Mr LD stated that these places were beside a woman and that a child subsequently sat on the woman’s lap. The matter seems to be quite confusing but it is not in my view a key aspect of the case before me. My primary conclusion from the somewhat confusing information is that there were not six seats available, rather there was only one or two seats remaining.   In relation to whether a man or a woman with a child was permitted to board the train I find that Ms EH stated that “the train was approached by another man, who asked if he could take the last seat available and sit his toddler, who was no more than two years of age, on his lap. My colleague said this was no problem and allowed him on…” Ms EH confirmed that she did not have any interaction with these persons. Mr LD stated in his written statement that “another family approached me and asked to be seated and I offered the same 2 seats which they took”. At the hearing he stated that a family of 2-3 adults and a child approached him, Ms EH had no dealing with them. Mr LD stated that, having spoken to the family they decided that a lady in her eighties and the child would board the train. It is not clear whether or not Ms EH actually saw the persons in question seated or did she only see a man approaching Mr LD. The Complainant insisted that he saw a man and a child being seated. However, although he watched the train and saw the man entering the train he did not recall and stated that he had no reason to see how many people accompanied the man. I find the discrepancies in the evidence of the parties quite confusing. However, once again it is my view that whether it was a man with a child or a woman with a child it is not of a principal significance in the case before me. The facts, as established are as follows: the Complainant and his family, two adults and four children walked along the train route. It was in dispute whether the family had a pram. The Complainant approached the train, which was slowed down by the driver, Mr LD, inquiring about boarding of the train. He was informed to walk to the train stop, which was pointed out to him. The family kept walking towards the stop. By the time they reached the stop only very limited places were available on the train. The Complainant approached the staff member, Ms EH inquiring as to whether they can board the train. Ms EH, having seen the family walking along the train route and in the vicinity of the train stop, correctly or not assumed that the whole family would like to board the train and informed the Complainant that there was not enough of seats to accommodate them. The Complainant agreed at the hearing that the train was ‘very full’. At the hearing the Complainant confirmed also that he did not specifically say that only him and his daughter would like to be seated. However, he argued that his family were ‘a bit away’ and they did not intend to board the train. It is in dispute whether or not the Compliant spoke with Mr LD. Mr LD and Ms EH stated that the Complainant approached Mr LD. Mr LD gave evidence that he told the Complainant that there was no room for the whole family as only two places were available. The Complainant argued that he did not speak to Mr LD at all. The driver, Mr LD was then approached by other people and he permitted one adult and one child to board the train. Having seen that, the Complainant approached Ms EH again and queried why he did not get a seat while the other person did. Ms EH again explained that there were not enough seats to accommodate the family.

The Act states clearly that discrimination shall be taken to occur where: “A person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified… Section 3(2)(i) 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”)”.

There was no evidence adduced in respect of the persons who were permitted to board the train and occupied the last remaining seats. The Respondent submitted that these persons were in exactly the same position as the Complainant, there were not enough seats for the whole group but unlike the Complainant they accepted the seats that were offered to them. The Complainant did not offer any evidence in relation to the persons by reference to whom he claims he received less favourable treatment. There was no evidence adduced to show that the persons did not share the Complainant’s status. The Complainant did not adduce any evidence that he was treated less favourably than a settled person would have been treated in similar circumstances.

In coming to my conclusion, I have also taken into consideration that the Complainant had been afforded service in the Respondent’s park on one occasion prior to the incident that occurred on 17th June 2017 and no issues arose. I note that on that occasion he did not attempt to board the train. The Complainant confirmed that he and his family enjoyed the visit on that occasion. The Complainant had no difficulty with accessing the park on the day in question. I also note that the Respondent took immediate action and offered the Complainant a private train tour of the park.

On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the reason for not permitting the Complainant to board the train was not linked to the Complainant’s membership of the Traveller community.

Having regard to the totality of the evidence adduced, I am satisfied that the action taken by the Respondent on this date was in no way attributable to the Complainant’s membership of the Traveller community. Having regard to the foregoing, I find that the Complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the grounds of his membership of the Traveller community.

In accordance with Section 25(4) of the Equal Status Acts, I conclude this investigation and issue the following decision. I find that the Complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the ground of membership of the Traveller community in terms of sections 3(1), 3(2)(i) and 5(1) of the Equal Status Acts.  Accordingly, the complaint fails.

Discrimination, member of the Traveller community, prima facie case not established