Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Kathleen  Stokes

Touch Of Beauty Skin & Laser Clinic Limited

Representatives

Mary Toher Vincent Toher & Co. Solicitors. Patrick Silke BL

 Self

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00038560-001

07/07/2020

The complainant is alleging that she was discriminated against by the Respondent in relation to the provision of a services, namely beauty treatments, on the grounds that she is a member of the Travelling Community.

The Complainant has been using the Respondent’s salon weekly for over three and a half years. She attends there several times every week to use the sunbeds. She also attends regularly to get her nails and eyebrows done. On the 07.02.2020 she and her mother walked into the Respondent’s salon. The Complainant had a complimentary facial which she wanted to give to her mother. She was going to use the sunbed. The girl at reception was on the phone at the time. She placed her finger on the fingerprint system which brought her details up onto the computer system. The Receptionist then told her that she and all the Stokes were barred from the premises. She asked why? She was informed it has something to do with “an incident”. The Complainant states that it is possible to just “walk in” and get a slot. She has done that in the past.

The Complainant and her family are very good customers of the Respondent. She has been a customer of the Respondent for several years. She attends at the salon several days per week.  The Complainant had received a complimentary facial which is given to customers if they use the sunbeds the certain number of times. She had made three previous appointments for the facial and she did not turn up and did not cancel the booking. The Respondent put a note on the system that if she tried to place another booking for the facial that she was to talk to him first. On the day in question, the 07.02.2020, the Complainant arrived at the salon with her mother for the facial. She had not made an appointment. There were no slots available at that time. She was told that. She was advised that she could make an appointment for another time. She did not book the appointment. The manager spoke to her on the phone and explained the situation to her, that no slots were available and that she would have to make an appointment.

The Salon does take walk- ins but, only for short appointments like sunbeds or eyebrows and only if there is a slot available. Walk-ins for longer appointments like facials are not facilitated.

The Complainant was not barred from the premises. Several other members of her family have attended at the Salon since February 2020. She is always welcome. She just needs to make an appointment before she turns up.

Section 3 (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

(iv) is imputed to the person concerned,

( b ) where a person who is associated with another person —

(i) 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, and

(ii) similar treatment of that other person on any of the discriminatory grounds would, by virtue of paragraph ( a ), constitute discrimination,

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

( i) that one is a member of the travelling community and the other is not ( the Traveller Community ground”) 

The burden of proof which applies to claims of discrimination is well established in this jurisdiction. It provides, in effect, that where facts are established by, or on behalf of a Complainant from which discrimination may be inferred, it shall be for the Respondent to prove the absence of discrimination. The test requires the Complainant to prove the primary facts upon which she relies in seeking to raise an inference of discrimination. It is only if this initial burden is discharged and the Adjudication Officer is satisfied that the facts as established are of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination, that the burden passes to the Respondent.  If the complainant does not discharge the initial probative burden required by her, the case cannot succeed.

The Complainant alleges that she was discriminated against by the Respondent because she is a member of the travelling community. She alleges that on the 07.02.2020 after arriving at the salon and making her identity known to the Receptionist, she was told that she and her family members were barred because of “an incident”. The Respondent stated that neither the Complainant nor her family are barred from their premises. They are good, long standing customers of the Respondent and several members of the family still attend at the salon regularly. The only reason the Respondent couldn’t facilitate the Complainant and her mother on the 07.02 2020 was because she hadn’t made an appointment and they had no slots available that afternoon. She was invited to make an appointment. She did not and has not returned since.

I am satisfied based on the evidence of both the Complainant and the Respondent that the Complainant has not established a prima facia case of discrimination. I am satisfied that all that happened on the 07.02.2020 was that the Complainant got upset because there was no slot available for her when she wanted it.

The complaint fails.

The Complaint fails.

Equal Status. Discrimination. Travelling Community. Burden of Proof.