CORRECTION ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 29 OF THE EQUAL STATUS ACT
This Order corrects the original decision issued on the 7th of January 2020 and should be read in conjunction with that Decision.
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00016257
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Jean Martin | Michelle Kelly |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties |
|
|
Representatives | Citizens Information Service CLG. |
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00021050-001 | 08/08/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/08/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Orla Jones
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
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 admission to the respondent B & B on the 20th of February 2018 having made a prior booking over the phone. 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-00016254, 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. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
It is submitted that the complainant had booked a room in the respondent B&B on the 19th of February for herself and her sister for the purpose of staying there overnight on the 20th of February 2018 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 found the door locked and when she phoned the respondent proprietor he told her that someone would let her in shortly. Following this conversation no one opened the door to let her in and she made further repeated attempts to contact the respondent by phone but he did not answer her calls. The complainant submits was left with no choice to seek alternative accommodation on the night in question. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing but in a written response stated that all publicans in the town had been told by the Gardai to close their premises on the day in question. |
Findings and Conclusions:
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 Bed and breakfast for the night of the 20th of February 2018. The complainant stated that she had booked a room in the bed and breakfast on the 19th of February as she needed a place to stay in the town while she was attending her uncle’s funeral in the same town. The complainant advised the hearing that she had also phoned the proprietor after making the booking to find out about breakfast. The complainant stated that she had also clarified that the booking was for two people and that she and her sister expected to arrive between 2 and 4pm as they were attending their uncles wake and funeral. The complainant added that Mr. A, the owner was very pleasant on the phone. The complainant advised the hearing that she arrived at the premises at about 4 o clock on the date in question to find the premises locked up with the blinds down. The complainant told the hearing that she then phoned the respondents mobile which he answered and told her that someone would be down shortly. The complainant stated that the respondent Mr. A had also asked her “who was with her”. The complainant told the hearing that she had already parked her car and paid for parking and that she and her sister were waiting outside the door of the premises. The complainant stated that she waited for about a half an hour and that she had phoned Mr. A s mobile number about 20 times while she waited outside the premises but that he did not answer. The complainant stated that while she stood outside the premises waiting for Mr. A to let her in a number of family members passed her on their way to the funeral and she stated that she was embarrassed to be seen standing outside with her suitcase trying to get in. The complainant added that she was also visibly upset at this stage. The complainant stated that she was under pressure to get to the mortuary for her uncles’ burial and so after waiting about a half an hour she walked down to the mortuary. The complainant advised the hearing that every place in the town was closed on the day in question as they were all aware that a big traveller funeral was taking place. The complainant advised the hearing that she tried phoning the respondent’s mobile a few more times and that the respondent premises was still closed when she came out of the wake. The complainant stated that she eventually gave up as she had to try and find alternative accommodation for the night in question. The respondent did not attend the hearing but in his response to the notification under the Equal status Act submitted that all publicans in the town had been told by the Gardai to close their premises on the day in question. The complainant’s representative in response to this advised the hearing that they had received a written statement from the Gardai stating that this was not the case and that there was no instruction given by Gardai to any public house in the area to close their premises on the day in question. The complainant submits that the respondent Mr. A was aware that she was attending the funeral of a member of the Traveller community which was taking place on the 20th and 21st of February 2018 and that he had become aware that the complainant and her sister were members of the Traveller community. The complainant told the hearing that while she waited outside the B & B, she could see that the lights were on inside the premises, but the blinds were closed down and the doors locked. 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 the premises 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. |
Decision:
Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.
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. |
Dated: 7th January 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Orla Jones
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00016257
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Jean Martin | The Auld Triangle Bed And Breakfast |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties |
|
|
Representatives | Citizens Information Service CLG. |
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00021050-001 | 08/08/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/08/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Orla Jones
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
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 admission to the respondent B & B on the 20th of February 2018 having made a prior booking over the phone. 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-00016254, 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. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
It is submitted that the complainant had booked a room in the respondent B&B on the 19th of February for herself and her sister for the purpose of staying there overnight on the 20th of February 2018 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 found the door locked and when she phoned the respondent proprietor he told her that someone would let her in shortly. Following this conversation no one opened the door to let her in and she made further repeated attempts to contact the respondent by phone but he did not answer her calls. The complainant submits was left with no choice to seek alternative accommodation on the night in question. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing but in a written response stated that all publicans in the town had been told by the Gardai to close their premises on the day in question. |
Findings and Conclusions:
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 Bed and breakfast for the night of the 20th of February 2018. The complainant stated that she had booked a room in the bed and breakfast on the 19th of February as she needed a place to stay in the town while she was attending her uncle’s funeral in the same town. The complainant advised the hearing that she had also phoned the proprietor after making the booking to find out about breakfast. The complainant stated that she had also clarified that the booking was for two people and that she and her sister expected to arrive between 2 and 4pm as they were attending their uncles wake and funeral. The complainant added that Mr. A, the owner was very pleasant on the phone. The complainant advised the hearing that she arrived at the premises at about 4 o clock on the date in question to find the premises locked up with the blinds down. The complainant told the hearing that she then phoned the respondents mobile which he answered and told her that someone would be down shortly. The complainant stated that the respondent Mr. A had also asked her “who was with her”. The complainant told the hearing that she had already parked her car and paid for parking and that she and her sister were waiting outside the door of the premises. The complainant stated that she waited for about a half an hour and that she had phoned Mr. A s mobile number about 20 times while she waited outside the premises but that he did not answer. The complainant stated that while she stood outside the premises waiting for Mr. A to let her in a number of family members passed her on their way to the funeral and she stated that she was embarrassed to be seen standing outside with her suitcase trying to get in. The complainant added that she was also visibly upset at this stage. The complainant stated that she was under pressure to get to the mortuary for her uncles’ burial and so after waiting about a half an hour she walked down to the mortuary. The complainant advised the hearing that every place in the town was closed on the day in question as they were all aware that a big traveller funeral was taking place. The complainant advised the hearing that she tried phoning the respondent’s mobile a few more times and that the respondent premises was still closed when she came out of the wake. The complainant stated that she eventually gave up as she had to try and find alternative accommodation for the night in question. The respondent did not attend the hearing but in his response to the notification under the Equal status Act submitted that all publicans in the town had been told by the Gardai to close their premises on the day in question. The complainant’s representative in response to this advised the hearing that they had received a written statement from the Gardai stating that this was not the case and that there was no instruction given by Gardai to any public house in the area to close their premises on the day in question. The complainant submits that the respondent Mr. A was aware that she was attending the funeral of a member of the Traveller community which was taking place on the 20th and 21st of February 2018 and that he had become aware that the complainant and her sister were members of the Traveller community. The complainant told the hearing that while she waited outside the B & B, she could see that the lights were on inside the premises, but the blinds were closed down and the doors locked. 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 the premises 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. |
Decision:
Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.
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. |
Dated: 7th January 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Orla Jones