Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Joseph  O'Donovan

Oriel House Hotel Limited t/a Oriel House Hotel.

Representatives

Sinéad Lucey Free Legal Advice Centres

David Gaffney, Gaffney Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00047751-001

20/12/2021

The Complainant’s partner is a member of the Traveller community, and the Complainant   submits that he was discriminated against by association on the Traveller community ground under the   Equal Status Acts 2000-2015 (hereinafter “the ESA”) in the provision of accommodation.

Preliminary Objections:

The Respondent raised two preliminary objections at the hearing:

(1)    That the Workplace Relations Commission did not have jurisdiction and the matter should be heard instead in the District Court with reference to section 19(2) of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003.

(2)    That there were no separate ES1 forms submitted for each Complainant, and that the letter of August 4, 2021, which purported to be a notification document under the ESA, was sent by the representative for the three associated Complainants in a single letter, when they should have been sent individually for each Complainant.

Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003 (“ILA 2003”).

The Respondent submitted that Section 19(2) of the ILA 2003 provides that a person who claims prohibited conduct on or at the point of entry of such premises may apply to the District Court for redress. The Respondent further submitted that Section 19(11) of the ILA 2003 states that the ESA shall cease to apply as of the commencement of (Statutory Instrument) S.I. No. 362/2003 – Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003 (Commencement) Order 2003 on 18 August 2003. A copy of the map of the hotel and the licence attached to the Respondent premises was exhibited in support of this submission. The Respondent argued that because the whole premises of the Respondent is a licenced premises for the purpose of the ILA 2003, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) does not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The Complainant argued that this case falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the WRC under the ESA. The Complainant submitted that Section 19(1) of the ILA 2003 defined “prohibited conduct” as including “discrimination” but further defined “discrimination” as: discrimination within the meaning of the ESA, 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;

The Complainant submitted that with the exception of cases to which sub-clauses (a) and (b) of the definition of “discrimination” in section 19(1) of the 2003 Act apply, all cases of “prohibited conduct” occurring “on, or at the point of entry to, licensed premises” must be heard in the District Court. The Complainant argued that the WRC (as the successor to the Equality Tribunal) retains jurisdiction for the remaining cases and specifically those cases concerning the provision of accommodation or services and amenities related to accommodation.

The Complainant argued that the literal meaning of section 19 (1) is that hotels, in the context of providing accommodation and ancillary services, are not encompassed within the remit of section 19 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003, but such services are encompassed within sections 5 and 6 of the ESA. The Complainant cited a number of cases to show that this is the established legal position.

Findings:

It is clear in this case that the issue involves accommodation and ancillary services – namely the booking of four rooms, an evening meal and breakfast the following day. This case does not pivot around the selling of alcoholic drinks nor the prohibition of entry onto the premises on the day in question.  Section 19(1) of the ILA 2003 clearly sets down the proviso that the (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; falls within the remit of the ESA as opposed to the ILA 2003. Therefore, I found that I had jurisdiction to hear the complaint and I communicated this decision to the parties at the hearing.

No Separate ES 1 Forms for Each Complainant.

The Respondent argued that no separate ES1 forms were sent by the associated Complainants to the Respondent and that this was contrary to the notification requirements under the ESA.

The Complainant argued that there is no such requirement under section 21 of the ESA and that the letter of 4 August 2021 to the Respondent fulfilled the notification obligations.

Findings:

Section 21(2) of the ESA outlines the notification obligations of a complainant before submitting a claim to the WRC. It states: -

Before seeking redress under this section, the complainant—

(a) shall, within 2 months after the prohibited conducted is alleged to have occurred, or, where more than one incident of prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred, within 2 months after the last such occurrence, notify the respondent in writing of—

(i) the nature of the allegation,

(ii) the complainant’s intention, if not satisfied with the respondent’s response to the allegation to seek redress under this Act…

Having read the letter of 4 August 2021 in the   names of the Complainants collectively, I am satisfied that the Respondent was made aware of the allegations made against it in the letter from the Complainants’ representative., and the express intention to take a possible case to the WRC is also mentioned. There is no reference in the legislation to separate notification for each complainant in associated complaints where a common allegation of prohibited conduct is alleged. Indeed, it can be inferred that such a clause would be considered excessively pedantic by any lawmaker. The plain fact of the matter is that the Respondent was made aware of three Complainant’s who alleged discrimination by letter of 4 August 2021, and I do not accept the Respondent’s objection on this issue.

On the substantive issue, and without prejudice to its objections, the Respondent denies discrimination and submits that the Respondent was not aware at any time that the Complainant was a member of the Traveller community, or associated with that community, and furthermore, that the non-provision of accommodation on the day was due to the regular occurrence of overbooking, which could affect all potential guests regardless of ethnicity. 

Summary of the evidence of the evidence of Margaret O’Sullivan, partner of the Complainant, given under oath:

The witness stated that her daughter had her Confirmation on 6 July 2021, and it was decided that they would celebrate the day by having an evening meal in a hotel as well as accommodation for the night. She booked four rooms, an evening meal and breakfast for members of her family, including the Complainant and their children, by telephone at the Respondent hotel using her sister’s Visa card at 16.00 on the day. The full sum of €600 was paid up front. She described how her children were extremely excited, they dressed up for the day (that was in it) and the family members made their way to the hotel approximately one and a half to two hours later.

The witness gave an account of queuing at the reception desk when she noticed that the Receptionist had looked at her whilst she was in the queue in a way that made her (the witness) feel   uncomfortable. She noticed also that the Receptionist was looking further away at her children who were playing in the lobby. The witness said that when she reached the desk, the first response of the Receptionist was to say “Sorry, we’re overbooked”, but when the witness said that they had reservations, the Receptionist consulted with her computer and told the witness that their rooms were being cleaned. She noticed that the Receptionist was on the phone immediately and the witness walked back to tell her family that staff was cleaning the rooms. Shortly after that, two managers appeared and approached them in the lobby. The witness identified them as the Manager and the Assistant Manager, who were in attendance for the Respondent at the hearing. The Manager told the witness and her family that there was an overbooking, and that accommodation could not be provided. The witness said that when she told her children that they could not stay at the hotel, they became terribly upset and started crying. The witness said that no additional support was given by management, and they were “scurried” out of the lobby in what she felt was humiliating way in front of other people. The witness felt it was quite clear that the managers wanted them off the premises as soon as possible. During this conversation the witness stated that there was no mention of the meal they had booked, nor of an offer of alternative accommodation, but rather that that it was offered repeatedly that taxis would be called for them. The witness stated that the Assistant Manager followed them to the car park and enquired of her sister, Ms Theresa O’Sullivan, as to whether she wanted the payment back in cash. When her sister answered yes, the witness said the assistant manager took a wad amounting to €600 euro in cash that he was holding and gave it to her sister. 

The witness said she believed that the family and herself were discriminated against by the Respondent because they were members of the Traveller community. She described how humiliated and hurt she felt in the refusal of the hotel to provide accommodation. She stated that her children were deeply upset and the older one, especially, knew the reason for refusal. She arranged for her children to go to the cinema that night so as to forget what happened, but they came away early from the showing because they were so distressed.

On the following day, 7 July 2021, the witness attended the hotel to seek further explanation and asked to speak to a manager. No manager was available to her at the time, and she was promised by a staff member that she would be contacted by phone. However, the witness never received a call back.

When asked in examination by her representative as to how the hotel staff might identify her as a Traveller, she said that she “talks like a Traveller, and looks like a Traveller”. She spoke of being proud of being a Traveller and her Traveller culture. She outlined how Travellers like to dress up for special occasions, especially the female children, who were wearing distinctive colourful dresses and jewellery on the day which made them stand out from members of the settled community in the lobby.  She stated that the family would be easily recognisable as Travellers to hotel staff.

In cross-examination the witness stated that she booked four rooms but may have mistakenly put in three rooms in the original letter sent on her behalf on 4 August 2021. With reference to her written submission whereby the witness had stated that she had previously attended at the hotel, she described that her sister, Theresa O’Sullivan, had muscular dystrophy and she attended a dinner at the hotel with her sister for the Muscular Dystrophy Ireland charity as a paying guest. This was organised by the charity, and she had no direct contact with the hotel in the booking arrangement.

Summary of the evidence of the partner of the Complainant, given under affirmation:

The Complainant said he was a long-time partner of Margaret O’Sullivan but was not a member of the Traveller community. He stated that when the family walked into the lobby on the day in question, everyone in the group was in a good mood. His partner queued at the reception desk and when she came back, she said that the rooms were being cleaned by staff and they must wait awhile. He said they were then approached by the Manager and Assistant Manager in the lobby (identified at the hearing) who told them that there had been an overbooking and the family could not be provided with the original reserved rooms. He described how his children became terribly upset and how embarrassed he felt in being led out of the hotel in front of other people. He said the managers were not overly apologetic and said nothing about alternative accommodation nor the evening meal that was booked by the family. He remembered that the managers asked them a number of times if they wished for taxis to be called for them in a manner that suggested that the managers wanted the family off the premises as soon as possible. He felt very embarrassed by this and attributes the happenings to the fact that the members of his family were from the Traveller community, and he was associated with them.  

In cross examination the Complainant said he could not hear what was being said between his partner and a member of staff at the reception desk because he was some distance back from the desk with his children in the lobby. He acknowledged also that there were quite a few other people mingling in the lobby at the time.

Summary of the Evidence of Ms. Theresa O’Sullivan, sister of the partner, of the Complainant:

The witness gave evidence under affirmation. The witness gave evidence of the managers coming down to the family group in the lobby and telling them that there was an overbooking. She stated that there was no reference to a meal or alternative arrangements in another hotel but that they were ushered out quickly from the lobby in a way that made her feel extremely uncomfortable because other people were looking at them. She described how the children were terribly upset and she believes there was no other reason for the refusal of accommodation but that they were members of the Traveller community. They were asked a number of times by the managers if they required taxis. She relayed how the Assistant Manager approached her outside the hotel and asked her if she wished to have the accommodation money refunded in cash. She said yes because she wanted to get away from the hotel because of the upset she felt. She stated that the Assistant Manager produced a wad of notes amounting to €600, the amount that was paid from her Visa card for the accommodation.

In cross-examination the witness said she was uncomfortable in the lobby because of the way the staff members were looking at them. When asked to describe the outfit her sister was wearing on the day in question, she could not recall that detail.

Summary of the Complainant’s Legal Argument:

The Complainant submits that he was discriminated against by association within the meaning of section 3(1) of the ESA in the provision of accommodation and meals by the Respondent on the “Traveller Community Ground” The Complainant refer to the burden of proof set out in the ESA at section 38 A on the Complainant to establish a prima facie case and refers to the test set out in Southern Health Board v Mitchell [2001] ELR 201 where the Labour Court stated as follows:

“The first requirement is that the claimant must establish facts from which it may be presumed that the principle of equal treatment has not been applied to them. This indicates that a claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, the primary facts on which they rely in seeking to raise a presumption of unlawful discrimination. It is only if these primary facts are established to the satisfaction of the Court, and they are regarded by the Court as being of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination, that the onus shifts to the respondent to prove that there is no infringement of the principle of equal treatment.” It follows that a complainant has to establish both the primary facts upon which he or she relies and also that those facts are of sufficient significance to raise an inference of discrimination”.

The Complainant submits that he is a partner of a member of the Traveller community and so comes within the scope of the discriminatory ground by association. The Complainant’s partner made a booking and reserved four rooms in the Respondent Hotel. The Respondent hotel has provided evidence of those bookings and the payment made in respect of same. However, those booking were cancelled by staff in the period after the arrival of the Complainant and his family at the hotel. The Complainant’s partner was first told that the rooms were being cleaned and then were given a different account by the managers. The Complainant contends that this is sufficient to satisfy the second stage of the test.

The Complainant must establish that the treatment was less favourable treatment, by association, than another person, not covered by the ground. The Complainant asserts that this has been noted by the WRC not to be an onerous burden of proof and refers to Oskar Hangurbadzo v Ladbroke (Ireland) Limited (ADJ-00030248) where the Adjudication Officer stated “What those cases mean is that the claimant must go some way along the line of showing that the less favourable treatment was ‘on grounds of their membership of, or association with, a ground covered by the Act. The point of the burden of proof in section 38A is that the claimant does not have to go so far along the line as a plaintiff in seeking to prove causation on the balance of probabilities in a civil claim.”  The Complainant submits that in the present case, the acceptance of a booking at 4pm with full payment in advance followed by the sudden cancellation of the booking less than two hours later when the Complainant and his family presented in person at the Respondent hotel, giving the opportunity to the Respondent to identify the ethnicity of the group, fulfils this test. The Complainant argues that this set of facts, which are not disputed, are sufficient to establish a prima facie case and shift the burden of proof to the Respondent to rebut the presumption of discrimination that arises.

In reference to documentation exhibited, the Complainant refers to the response issued on 15 September 2021 where it was indicated that the Respondent hotel was “overbooked”. The letter states: “Overbooking is quite common, and the hotel would often overbook as there would always be an element of washdown. Unfortunately, when the guests arrived to the hotel, we had not experienced the level of wash-down anticipated and we had no suitable rooms available for Ms. O’Sullivan, Mr O’Donovan and Ms. O’Sullivan.”

The Complainant contends that this letter fails to explain the level of booking on the day, how the hotel became “overbooked”, what the policy of the hotel is in relation to “overbooking” and what level of “washdown” might have been expected that had not been realised by 4pm (the stated check in timed and approximate time of the booking) on 6 July 2023. The Complainant argues that the letter of 15 September 2021 is silent in relation to any other cancellations on the same date, and so, the Complainant submits, it must be assumed that the Complainant and his family are the only ones that had their booking cancelled peremptorily on that date. The Complainant contends that the assertion that “overbooking is quite common” does not in fact address the complaint and that overbookings are far from common.  The Complainant submits that the Respondent cannot rely on an asserted practice as “quite common” and thereby make it so. If the Respondent hotel wishes to assert this is the case, then it should establish by reference to objective evidence that “overbooking” is common and that cancellations result, such that the treatment of the Complainants can be shown to be the norm rather than the exception.

Summary of the evidence of the Hotel Manager:

The witness gave evidence under affirmation. The witness described herself as having many years experience in the hotel and hospitality industry since she left college. She outlined her value system where she stated that she was fully aware of the rights of other people, especially the Traveller community and would not tolerate or allow discrimination against them. She said that because of the lateness of the booking on the day, the Reservationist on the phone had misread the system and made an error. The witness said that overbooking was a common occurrence and “it happens one or two days a week”, and that the practice is that the last person to book, is unfortunately the guest who suffers. The manager on duty on the day makes that decision.  In this instance, there was a “minus 5 situation”. This means that they had overbooked 5 rooms which showed that 104 rooms were booked, where the hotel had capacity only for 99 rooms. The witness exhibited a single copy of an Excel sheet for the month of July 2021, which she testified as an authentic record showing the only overbooking event was that of Tuesday 6 July 2021, which showed 104 rooms on that day. She stated that the night manager had printed the document.

The witness described the protocol for managing the situation to minimise the inconvenience for the guests, which she said in this instance was the offer to seek alternative accommodation in a number of nearby hotels for the discommoded people, which was not taken up by the Complainants.  The offer of calling taxis was only if the guests were to take up alternative accommodation. She stated that she had instructed the Assistant Manager to take €600 from the safe to refund the Complainants.

The witness stated that on the day the Complainants did not identify as members of the Traveller community, and she had no idea that they were members of that community. She stated that she could not distinguish them on the day from members of the settled community in the manner of their dress. She stated that members of the Traveller community had regularly attended at the hotel prior to the day in question for various events.

In cross examination it was put to the witness, in reference to the previous correspondence prior to the hearing, that there was no mention of error by the Reservationist and that her previous correspondence with the Complainant’s representative referred only to what was described as a common occurrence at the hotel due to a system “washdown” where rooms are booked and where cancellations allow a certain number of overbookings to be made when the system balances up. The witness re-iterated that a staff member made an error. She accepted also that the Reservationist in question nor the Receptionist were available to give evidence at the hearing as they were both no longer employed by the Respondent.

The witness accepted in further questioning that there was no ESA policy or training available for staff members.

It was put to the witness as to how she could say for certain that members of the Traveller community had previously attended functions at the hotel when she (the witness) said in her evidence that she could not distinguish between the members of the settled community and the Traveller community, in the manner of dress or otherwise. The witness replied that the members of the Traveller community first declared themselves as Travellers at the various events. 

It was put to the witness in further cross-examination that she gave evidence that overbooking was a common occurrence that happened at least once or twice a week when the copy of the Excel sheet she had produced at the hearing showed that the only overbooking day for the month of July 2021 was the day that the Complainant and her family had booked. The witness stated that the sheet was the valid record, and that overbooking was common.

The witness was asked about a prior data access request reply from the Respondent where it was stated there was no record held in relation to the return of cash payment made on 6 July 2021. The witness said she could not explain why that was the case because she did not handle the data request.  

Summary of the Respondent’s Legal argument:

The Respondent submits that it was clear from the evidence of the Manager that the Reservationist had made a mistake in taking the late booking of the Complainants and that the hotel carried out its normal protocol when such events happen, that being that the persons last to book have to be refused and that this is applied to all persons, be they members of the settled or Traveller communities. The Respondent rejects the argument that the family were easily identifiable as Travellers to hotel staff. The Respondent’s solicitor pointed out that when he asked Ms Theresa O’Sullivan what her sister was wearing on the day, she admitted that she could not remember. The Respondent suggests that this response indicates that dress was not elaborate or easily identified as to mark out the Complainants as being from the Traveller community, on 6 July 2021, and this fact points strongly in favour of the Respondent’s argument that the Complainant has not made out a prima facie case in the first instance.  

The Applicable Law:

Section 3 (1)(a) of the ESA provides:

"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- exists, existed but no longer exists, may exist in the future, or is imputed to the person concerned"

The relevant discriminatory grounds are set out in sub-section (2) of Section 3, in its relevant part states:

"…(i) that one is a member of the Traveller community and the other is not (the "Traveller community ground"…)"

Discrimination by association is dealt with at 3(1)(b) where it states:

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,

The burden of proof is described at Section 38A of the ESA where it states:

 “Where in any proceeding’s 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…”

The Complainant is required to establish facts that may give rise to an inference of discrimination (the ‘prima facie’ case) and the burden of proof then shifts to the Respondent to disprove the inference of discrimination. In this case the Complainant has to show that he was discriminated by virtue of his association with members of the Traveller community and that the Respondent had actual or implied knowledge of this fact on 6 July 2021 at the Respondent hotel, and that it is apt to infer from the evidence that the cancellation of the bookings on the day was prohibited conduct by the Respondent. As was alluded to in Southern Health Board v Mitchell [2001] ELR 201, which was opened in this case, the Complainant is required to raise a presumption of discrimination. If the prima facie case is established, then the burden shifts to the Respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination.

The Respondent in this case rejected the notion at the hearing that the staff at the hotel had actual or implied knowledge that the Complainant and his family were members of the Traveller community at the material time. I note that this was the position of the Manager on the day of the hearing. However, it does contrast with previous correspondence between the parties that was exhibited at the hearing, including the Manager’s initial reply of 15 September 2021 to the Complainants’ representative outlining the Respondent’s position. In that letter from the Manager there was no refutation of the fact that the Complainants were members of Traveller community, or otherwise that this fact was not known to the staff on the day in question. 

The Complainant’s partner gave cogent evidence that the children of the party were dressed in flamboyant clothes as was unique to Traveller children when special occasions, like a confirmation as in this instance, were being celebrated. She stated this was a proud tradition which Travellers uphold and that she accepts that such dress habits of both the children and adults, easily identifies them as Travellers. The Manager’s evidence was that the family were not distinguishable on the day from members of the settled community who were in the lobby.  She gave further evidence that she cannot identify Traveller’s from their dress as being from that community and further that the hotel regularly caters for Travellers. When pressed in questioning as to how she knew that previous guests were Travellers she stated that it was her experience that they always declared themselves as Travellers in the first place. I didn’t find such evidence to be plausible. 

The Receptionist was not available to give evidence. The Complainant, his partner and her sister gave convincing evidence that when they were in the lobby that the children by their dress, who were playing in the lobby, left no one in doubt that they were members of the Traveller community. It is widely known that members of the Traveller community often have distinct styles of dress which distinguish them from other groups. It is a badge of ethnicity and part of a culture of   which the Complainant’s partner stated, Travellers proudly uphold. I am satisfied, based on the evidence I heard, that the Respondent had implied knowledge on the day that the Complainant was associated with members the Traveller community.

The Complainant gave evidence of being ushered out of the hotel in a hurried fashion after been told by the Manager their reservations had been cancelled and being offered taxis at least four times. The Complainant’s partner described how the Assistant Manager produced a wad of notes amounting to €600 and gave it to her sister as a refund of monies paid. Furthermore, the Complainant’s partner attended at the hotel the following day to complain, to be told by a member of staff that the Manager would call her back by phone. No such call was received by the Complainant’s partner.  The evidence of the cancellation of the booking and the manner in which the Complainant and his family were treated by the Respondent suggests that the group were treated in a way that would not be afforded to members of the settled community, had they been similarly overbooked as a result of an error by the hotel.

 For the reasons outlined above, I am satisfied that the Complainant has established a presumption of discrimination by association and the burden shifts to the Respondent to show, on credible evidence that the cancellation of the booking and meals was due to a genuine case of overbooking, as the Respondent asserted.

The Manager gave evidence that the Reservationist was inexperienced and had made a genuine error in working the system and should not have taken the reservation from the Complainant at 16.00 on 6 July 2021 as the system showed that the hotel was fully booked at that late time on the day. The Reservationist was not in attendance to give evidence.  I note from the Manager’s letter to the Complainant’s representative of 15 September 2021, that no mention of error was referred to, rather that overbooking was a normal, regular occurrence.  This position contrasted with the Manager’s later oral evidence at the hearing.

The Manager gave evidence that overbooking was a regular feature of operation and occurred “one or two days a week”. However, upon examination of a copy of an Excel sheet exhibited by the Manager which purported to show bookings for the month of July 2021, it shows the only overbooking event for that month was for the night of 6 July 2021., where five rooms were overbooked, including the four booked by the Complainant and her family. No evidence was given by the Respondent of the other person who overbooked that night or how they were treated, nor was there any objective evidence of overbooking regularly occurring at the hotel, other than the assertion of the Manager.

 I found the evidence of the Manager to be unconvincing on the position that there was a genuine overbooking on the day in question, for a number of reasons. Firstly, there was a change of position as communicated to the Complainant in correspondence prior to the hearing, from overbooking as result of a natural, regular occurrence in hotel practice to that of evidence on the day of it being a unique error by the Reservationist who did not appear at the hearing to give evidence. Secondly, I am not convinced that overbooking is a regular occurrence in the hotel industry and evidence was given by the Complainant and members of his family that they had never experienced it previously. Thirdly, and fundamentally, the Manager contradicted her own evidence when she stated that overbooking occurs “one or two days a week” when a record she exhibited showed that the only night the hotel was overbooked was the night the Complainant’s partner had booked. Indeed, it was the only documentary evidence produced at the hearing to show that the hotel was ever overbooked. I can only conclude that the Respondent has not given credible evidence that overbooking was the operative cause for the cancellation of accommodation. Furthermore, even if there had been an overbooking, I found it hard to accept that the practice of a four-star hotel would be to corral discommoded guests with children, who were not members of the Traveller community, quickly out of the lobby in front of other people and offer them a substantial wad of notes as a rebate in the carpark.  This was done without any offer of food, though a meal was booked; despite having told them that their rooms were being cleaned and to wait awhile in the lobby.  

For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the Complainant’s prima facie case of discriminatory treatment by virtue of being associated with members of the Traveller Community was not satisfactorily rebutted by the Respondent. I find, based on the balance of probabilities, that being associated with members of the Traveller Community was the material fact which led to the Respondent denying the Complainant accommodation and meals at the Respondent hotel, in a manner that would not be afforded to persons who were not members of the Traveller community, or associated with that community, contrary to sections 3(1) and 3(2)(i) of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2015.  

Redress:

The Complainant outlined how he felt humiliated and embarrassed when his family and himself were ushered out of the hotel after the great disappointment of not being able to celebrate an especially important family occasion. I am satisfied that the Complaint was humiliated and embarrassed by the happenings on the day, and I direct the Respondent: -

(1)    to make compensation of €3,000 to the Complainant for the effects of the prohibited conduct, having regard to the principle of proportionality and that the award should be dissuasive.

(2)     to draft a written policy of compliance with the Equal Status Acts 2000-2015,

(3)     to ensure that all staff and management are trained on their responsibilities regarding the Equal Status Acts 2000-2015. 

I find that the Respondent engaged in prohibited conduct under the Equal Status Acts 2000-2015 for the reasons outlined above.

 I direct the Respondent: -

(1)    to make compensation of €3,000 to the Complainant for the effects of the prohibited conduct, having regard to the principle of proportionality and that the award should be dissuasive;

(2)     to draft a written policy of compliance with the Equal Status Acts 2000-2015;

(3)     to ensure that all staff and management are trained on their responsibilities regarding the Equal Status Acts 2000-2015.

Equal Status Act 2000, Membership of the Traveller Community, Discrimination by Association.