Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Jean Martin

Meadow Court Bar And Restaurant Limited

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

Citizens Information Service CLG

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00021046-001

08/08/2018

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

CA-00021046-002

08/08/2018

This dispute involves a claim on behalf of the complainant that she was discriminated against by the respondent, on grounds of membership of the Traveller Community when she was refused accommodation in the respondent’s hotel on the 20th of February 2018 having made a prior booking an hour previously through an online reservation website. The complainant referred a complaint under the Equal Status Acts, 2000-2015 on the 8th of August 2019.     I proceeded to a hearing of this matter on the 19th of August 2019.     The complainant also lodged a separate complaint against a different respondent under the reference Adj-00016257, this is the subject of a separate decision.   The respondent did not attend and was not represented on the day of the hearing and provided no explanation for their non-attendance.       I am satisfied that the respondent was notified of the date and time of the hearing.

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

CA-00021046-001

08/08/2018

It is submitted that the complainant had booked a room in the respondent B&B on the 20th of February 2018 for herself and her sister for the purpose of staying there overnight while she attended the funeral of her uncle who was being buried in the town.

The complainant stated that she and her sister arrived at the premises on the date in question and when she enquired about the reservation which she had made an hour previously through and online reservation website she was told they had no rooms. The complainant told the hearing that following this she contacted the online reservation website and was told by them that every reservation is instantly confirmed, and that the respondent Hotel had confirmed her booking ten minutes after she reserved the room. The complainant provided evidence of her booking confirmation to the hearing.   The complainant also provided a copy of correspondence from the booking agent confirming that her booking was active at the time of check in and stating that the guest should have been accommodated.  

The respondent did not attend the hearing but in a written response stated that that the hotel was fully booked on the date in question and that the booking placed by the complainant should not have been processed by the online reservation website as there were no rooms available in the respondent’s establishment.

The issue for decision by me now is, whether or not the respondent discriminated against the complainant on grounds of membership of the Traveller community in terms of sections 3 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000-2015.   In reaching my Decision I have taken into account all of the submissions, oral and written, made to me in the course of my investigation as well as the evidence at the Hearing.

Section 3(1) provides, inter alia, that discrimination shall be taken to occur where:

(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) (in this Act referred to as the ‘‘discriminatory grounds)’’

Section 3(1)(b) provides for discrimination by association whereby “a person who is associated with another person is treated, by virtue of that association, less favourably than a person who is not so associated, is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation.”

Section 3(2)(i) provides that: as between any two persons,

(i) that one is a member of the Traveller community and the other either is not (the “Traveller community ground”),

Section 38A (1) provides that the burden of proof is: " 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." It requires the complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts upon which he/she can rely in asserting that the prohibited conduct has occurred. Therefore, the complainants must first establish a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment and it is only when a prima facie case has been established that the burden of proof shifts to the respondent to rebut the presumption of discrimination. I am satisfied that the respondent is providing a service within the meaning of the Equal Status Acts.

In making my decision I must consider whether the existence of a prima facie case has been established by the complainants. Section 38A of the Equal Status Acts sets out the burden of proof which applies in a claim of discrimination. It requires the complainants 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.   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 complainant advised the hearing that she had booked accommodation in the respondent hotel for the night of the 20th of February 2018.   The complainant stated that she had booked a room in the respondent hotel an hour prior to her arrival through an online reservation website.   The complainant told the hearing that she and her sister arrived at the hotel and were told by the receptionist that there were no rooms available and that the last room had been taken by a ‘walk in’ a half an hour before she arrived.   The complainant told the hearing that she advised the receptionist that she had made the booking and hour before she arrived via a booking website.   The complainant told the hearing that following this she had contacted the online reservation website and was told by them every reservation is instantly confirmed, and that the respondent Hotel had confirmed her booking ten minutes after she reserved the room.   The complainant provided evidence of her booking confirmation to the hearing.   The complainant also provided a copy of correspondence from the booking agent confirming that her booking was active at the time of check in and that the guest should have been accommodated.  

The complainant advised the hearing that she had made this booking an hour before arriving at the premises as she had previously booked a B & B for the night but when she arrived the place was all locked up and she was left standing outside the door with no access to the premises as the proprietor did not answer her calls.   This is the subject of a separate complaint under Adj-00016257.

The complainant advised the hearing that she had asked the respondents receptionist if she could ring around to try and find them alternative accommodation for the night, she stated that the receptionist had phoned one other establishment which also turned out to have no rooms available.   The complainant submits that the reason for this refusal of accommodation was due to the fact that she and her sister are members of the traveller community.

The respondent in its response to the ES 1 form submits that the matter ‘amounts to a simple misunderstanding’ and that the hotel was fully booked on the date in question. However, I note that the respondent did not attend the hearing where it would have had an opportunity to clarify this alleged ‘misunderstanding’.   In addition, the respondent was not represented on the day of the hearing and provided no explanation for their non-attendance.   I am satisfied that the respondent in this case was notified of the date and time of the hearing.  

Having considered the totality of the evidence adduced in respect of this matter I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that it is most likely that the Complainant was denied access to accommodation on the basis that she was a member of the Traveller Community and that the complainant in this case has established a prima facie case of less favourable treatment on grounds of membership of the traveller community and that the respondent has failed to rebut that inference.

I am thus satisfied that the complainant was discriminated against on grounds of membership of the traveller community contrary to the Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2015.  

I have concluded my investigation of this complaint and based upon the aforementioned, I find pursuant to Section 25(4) of the Acts, that the Complainant was discriminated against by the respondent on the ground of membership of the Traveller community.

In accordance with Section 27 of the Acts, I order the Respondent to pay the complainant €2,500 in compensation in respect of the finding of direct discrimination on the ground of membership of the Traveller community.  

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

CA-00021046-002

08/08/2018

The complainant at the hearing clarified that this complaint reference related to a separate complaint against a different respondent which was comprehended and dealt with under a separate complaint reference in Adj-00016257 and on which I have issued a separate decision.   The complainant’s representative at the hearing clarified that the claim under complaint reference CA-00021046-002 was no longer being pursued.     Accordingly, I find that the claim under this complaint reference is not upheld.

I find that the claim under this complaint reference is not upheld.