ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00040008
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Allessia Marie Stokes | The Brass Fox |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives |
|
|
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-00051492-001 | 02/07/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/01/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Niamh O'Carroll
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000following 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:
The complaint alleges that she was discriminate against in relation to the provide of a service on the grounds that she is a member of the travelling community. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant alleges that on the 19.05.2022 when she and some family members attended at the Respondent’s licenced premises for the purpose of having a meal and some drinks she was discriminated against by the Respondent when she was informed by the manager that there were no tables available for them. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent alleges that they were not in business at the time of the alleged incident as the company was only registered in May 2022. Kevin O’ Shea on behalf of the Respondent confirmed that the premises are licenced premises for the purpose of the Intoxicating Liquor Acts. |
Findings and Conclusions:
As the alleged discrimination took place in a licenced premises, I have to establish if I have jurisdiction to deal with the matter. S19.—(1) Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003 states: In this section— “Act of 2000” means the Equal Status Act 2000 ;“Authority” means the Equality Authority; “Court” means the District Court; “discrimination” means discrimination within the meaning of the Act of 2000, but does not include discrimination in relation to— (a) the provision of accommodation or any services or amenities related to accommodation, or (b) ceasing to provide accommodation or any such services or amenities; “prohibited conduct” means discrimination against, or sexual harassment or harassment of, or permitting the sexual harassment or harassment of a person in contravention of Part II (Discrimination and Related Activities) of the Act of 2000 on, or at the point of entry to, licensed premises. (2) A person who claims that prohibited conduct has been directed against him or her on, or at the point of entry to, licensed premises may apply to the District Court for redress. Prior to embarking on the hearing, I established that the premises wherein the alleged discrimination took place is a licenced premises within the meaning of the 2003 Act. I therefore do not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The District Court is the correct venue for the hearing. In those circumstances I find that the complaint is not well founded and accordingly fails. |
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.
The complaint fails. |
Dated: 14th February 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Niamh O'Carroll
Key Words:
S19 Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003. Jurisdiction. Licenced premises. Equal Status Act. |