Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Pamela  McKeogh

Kilkenny House Hotel

Representatives

Kevin Ryan

 Mary Molloy Solicitor

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00034682-001

14/02/2020

The complaint concerns an allegation of discrimination in contravention of the Equal Status Act, 2000. The alleged act of discrimination is alleged to have taken place on 13th November 2019 when the complainant’s hotel booking was not accepted. The refusal is alleged to have occurred when the complainant and her partner notified the hotel that the complainant would be bringing her guide dog with her upon check-in on 19th November 2019. The Equal Status notification form (ES1) was submitted to the Hotel on 12th December 2019 and no response was received. The complainant’s partner and representative at the hearing, Mr Kevin Ryan stated that he attempted to resolve the issue on a number of occasions but that this had proved impossible. The complaint was submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission on 14th February 2020.   

In his verbal submission at the adjudication hearing, Mr Ryan, on behalf of the complainant stated that an online hotel booking had been made on 13th November 2019 for a one-night stay on 19th November 2019. Mr Ryan stated that he became aware that the hotel did not allow guide dogs on 14th November when he received a message from the hotel via the online booking agent that dogs were not allowed in the Hotel and that it would not be possible to bring the guide dog.

Mr Ryan stated that he tried to speak with the hotel manager about the issue on the telephone and by calling in to the hotel but the manager was not available on those occasions. Mr Ryan stated that he did speak to the manager subsequently on the telephone and during this conversation, the manager informed him that he himself had dogs and if the guide dog was present in the hotel the other dogs would “bark all night.” Mr Ryan confirmed that the hotel manager said, “he was cancelling the booking and didn’t want to hear any more about it.” Mr Ryan further stated that on staying in other hotels, there was never a requirement to stay in a room specifically designated for disability usage as the guide dog is highly trained and sits and sleeps on a special mat and does not move from that mat. Mr Ryan stated that even the suggestion of needing to use a room designated for disability usage further adds to the discrimination as it is not necessary at all for the complainant to stay in such a room.

In correspondence submitted to the WRC on 6th January 2022, the respondent outlined that the booking process for one of the four designated rooms on the ground floor that were suitable for persons with particular needs was different than the booking process completed by the complainant’s partner. The respondent stated that the particular offer availed of stated that no pets were allowed, and that the complainant’s partner would have been well aware of this at the time of booking.

The respondent stated that it does allow guide dogs at the hotel but that there was no such room requested by the complainant’s partner at the time of booking and on the night in question, none of those rooms were available. The respondent added that the complainant could not have stayed with her dog in any other room as this would have required extensive cleaning following her stay.  

In further correspondence submitted to the WRC on 3rd June 2022 the hotel manager, who was unable to attend any of the rescheduled adjudication hearings due to ill health, stated that the four bedrooms that were set aside for disability usage were not available on the day in question and that while he did indicate that the hotel may not be suitable for a guide dog, he did not refuse to allow the complainant and her partner to stay at the hotel. In his letter, the hotel manager further stated that he had personal experience of disability and if discrimination was perceived to have occurred in this case, he was truly sad and sorry for that perception.

The complainant alleges that she was discriminated against on the disability ground when she was not permitted to bring her guide dog to the hotel having booked one nights’ accommodation in November 2019.

The Applicable Law

Section 4 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 provides as follows:

4(1) For the purposes of this Act discrimination includes a refusal or failure by the provider of a service to do all that is reasonable to accommodate the needs of a person with a disability by providing special treatment or facilities, if without such special treatment or facilities it would be impossible or unduly difficult for the person to avail himself or herself of the service.

(2) A refusal or failure to provide the special treatment or facilities to which subsection (1) refers shall not be deemed reasonable unless such provision would give rise to a cost, other than a nominal cost, to the provider of the service in question.

(3) A refusal or failure to provide the special treatment or facilities to which subsection (1) refers does not constitute discrimination if, by virtue of another provision of this Act, a refusal or failure to provide the service in question to that person would not constitute discrimination.

(4) Where a person has a disability that, in the circumstances, could cause harm to the person or to others, treating the person differently to the extent reasonably necessary to prevent such harm does not constitute discrimination.

(5) This section is without prejudice to the provisions of sections 7(2)(a), 9(a) and 15(2)(g) of the Education Act, 1998, in so far as they relate to functions of the Minister for Education and Science, recognised schools and boards of management in regard to students with a disability.

Burden of proof

Section 38A of the Equal Status Act, 2000 provides as follows:

38A (1) 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.

(2) This section is without prejudice to any other enactment or rule of law in relation to the burden of proof in any proceedings which may be more favourable to the person.

(3) Where, in any proceedings arising from a reference of a matter by the Authority to the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission under section 23(1), facts are established by or on behalf of the Authority from which it may be presumed that prohibited conduct or a contravention mentioned in that provision has occurred, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.

In the within complaint, it is alleged that the complainant, who is blind, was not permitted to be accompanied by her guide dog having made a reservation at the hotel. The complainant’s partner, who made the booking, received a message on 14th November 2019 which stated that as pets were not allowed at the hotel, it would not be possible to bring the guide dog.

While the respondent states that it did allow guide dogs at the hotel but that there were no rooms available on the night in question, I do not accept this contention as the message sent the day after the booking was made is quite clear and unambiguous. I also note from Mr Ryan’s submission that the hotel policy on pets changed in December 2019 and that guide dogs are now accepted, although at the material time in November 2019, I am satisfied that this was not the case.

I also accept the verbal submission of the complainant’s partner in relation to his interactions with the hotel manager who told him that he himself had dogs and they would be barking all night if the guide dog was present at the hotel. This was explained by the respondent’s solicitor who confirmed that the manager lived adjacent to the hotel and his own dogs would be aware of the presence of the guide dog in the hotel. I also accept the verbal submissions of the complainants’ partner that while the hotel manager may well have accepted the booking, the reality was that once the guide dog was not permitted in the hotel, it would no longer be possible for them to stay there.

It would have been preferable for the hotel manager to attend the adjudication hearing and to give his own account of the situation and of his interactions with the complainant’s partner but despite an adjournment to facilitate his attendance, regrettably the hotel manager remained unavailable to attend due to ill health.

I have also considered the booking process and the fact as outlined by the respondent that the complainant, who had a guide dog, would not have been able to avail of that particular offer and would have to follow a different booking process when making a reservation online. With limited disability rooms available and in circumstances where the complainant did not need such a room, it is my view that this process presents a barrier to the complainant availing of a special offer online and further compounds the less favourable treatment she received from the respondent.

In all of the circumstances of this complaint, I find that the complaint is well founded. The complainant was subject to less favourable treatment as a result of her disability and the respondent failed to provide the necessary accommodation to the complainant to facilitate her stay at the Hotel.

Having considered the oral and written submissions of the parties to this complaint, I find that the complainant was discriminated against on the grounds of disability. The respondent is directed to pay the complainant €5,000.00 in compensation.

Discrimination, disability