Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mayank Bhatnagar

Ravi's Kitchen

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00024751-001

04/01/2019

The Complainant is Indian. The Complainant has submitted a complaint that he was refused service in the Respondent’s restaurant on the grounds of race.

The Complainant submits that he attended the Respondent’s restaurant on the 10th July 2018 with two colleagues for lunch at approximately 12:30 and that they were shown to a table by a female waiter.

The Complainant submits that when proprietor (the Respondent) was handing out the menus, the Complainant asked him if it would take long as they had limited time for lunch.

The Complainant submits that, without answering his question, the Respondent asked him if he was Indian.

The Complainant submits that when he said that he was, the Respondent said that he doesn't serve Indians and the Complainant had to leave.

The Complainant submits that when he asked the Respondent why he had to leave, the Respondent began to shout out loud about how his family had suffered.

The Complainant submits that himself and his colleagues got up to leave and the Respondent continued to shout and the female waiter also started shouting in their direction.

The Respondent did not attend the adjudication hearing. I am satisfied that the Respondent was properly on notice of the time, date and location of the adjudication hearing.

The matter for me to decide is whether the Complainant was discriminated against contrary to the Equal Status Acts when he was refused service in the Respondent’s restaurant due to his race.  

Section 3 of the Act provides, inter alia, as follows:

“(1) For the purposes of this Act discrimination shall be taken to occur—

(a) 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 subsection (2) or, if appropriate, subsection (3B),] (in this Act referred to as the ‘discriminatory grounds’) which—

(i) exists,

(ii) existed but no longer exists,

(iii) may exist in the future, or

…………….

(2) As between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are:

…………..

(h) that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins (the “ground of race”)”

Section 38 provides that it is for the Complainant to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment.

The Complainant, who is Indian, submits that he was refused service in the Respondent’s restaurant on the race ground when the Respondent asked him to leave as they did not serve Indians. The Complainant was accompanied by two subordinate colleagues who are not of Indian origin and were not refused service by the Respondent.

Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I am satisfied that the Complainant has established that he was treated less favourably than a person who was not Indian would be treated in a comparable situation. I find therefore that the Complainant has established a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment on the race ground.

Once the Complainant has established a prima facia case, the burden of proof then shifts to the Respondent.

Due to the non-attendance of the Respondent at the adjudication hearing, no contrary case was presented.

Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I find that the Complainant was discriminated against on the race 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."

I order the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €3,000 (three thousand euro) to compensate him for the distress caused to him. In making my award, I am taking account of the embarrassment that was caused to the Complainant when he was refused service in front of two subordinate colleagues.

Discrimination on the race ground