DEC-S-2005-038 Mr.Martin Nevin,
DEC-S-2005-039 Mrs Winifred Nevin,
(Represented by Kevin P. Kilrane & Co., Solicitors) V Greggs Public House (Longford) (represented by John J. Quinn & Co., Solicitors)
The complainants respectively referred a claim to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 25th February 2002. In accordance with her powers under section 75 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and under the Equal Status Act, 2000, the Director then delegated the case to me, Marian Duffy, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part III of the Equal Status Act, 2000.
1. Dispute
1.1 The dispute concerns a claim by Mr.Martin Nevin and Mrs.Winfred Nevin that they were discriminated against by Greggs Public House on the ground that they are members of the Traveller Community. The complainants allege that the respondent discriminated against them in terms of Sections 3(1)(a), and 3(2)(i) of the Equal Status Acts, 2000-2004, contrary to Section 5(1) of that Act.
2 Background
2.1 The complainants’ case is that they entered the respondent’s bar on 31 December 2001 and ordered a drink each and they were refused service. The complainants submitted that they believe that the refusal of service was due to the fact that they are members of the Traveller community. The respondent submitted that the complainants were not discriminated against on the ground that they are Travellers, but they were refused service because Mr. Nevin was under the influence of alcohol at the time service was sought.
3 Summary of the Complainants’ Case
3.1 The complainants stated that they are members of the Traveller community living in Longford. At about 8:00 pm on 31 December 2001 they entered the respondent’s pub to seek a service. They both went to the counter and Mr. Nevin ordered two drinks, a pint of shandy for himself and a brandy for his wife. The barman said that he was not serving them. Mr. Nevin requested the reason, but the barman made a gesture with his hands and just walked away.
3.2 Mr. Nevin said that there were other people in the bar at the time and he felt embarrassed about being refused. In response to the respondent’s claim that Mr. Nevin had too much alcohol consumed, Mr. Nevin submitted that he was off alcohol during that period due to a medical condition. In support of this claim Mr. Nevin submitted a medical report. Mr. Nevin did concede that he was seeking an alcoholic drink for himself and his wife.
3.2 The complainants submitted that the only reason they were treated in such a manner by the respondent was due to the fact that they are members of the Traveller community.
4 Summary of the Respondent’s Case
4.1 The respondent submitted that the complainants were not discriminated against on the Traveller community ground. It was submitted that the complainants were refused service because Mr. Nevin had too much alcohol consumed and Mrs. Nevin opted to leave with him when service was refused. Mr. Gerard Gregg proprietor of the respondent pub stated that he was satisfied that Mr. Nevin had too much alcohol consumed. He said that Mr. Gregg was refused on one other occasion when he had too much alcohol consumed.
He denied that the pub had a policy of not serving Travellers. He said that Travellers are served in the pub and some who are in the local football team are served regularly.
5. Conclusions of the Equality Officer
5.1 The matter referred for investigation turns upon whether or not the complainants were discriminated against contrary to Section 3(1)(a) and 3(2)(i) of the Equal Status Act and in terms of Section 5 (1) of that Act. In reaching my decision I have taken into account all the submissions, both oral and written, made to me by the parties in the course of my investigation into the complaint.
Section 3(1)(a) provides, inter alia, that discrimination shall be taken to occur where:
“On any of the grounds specified... (in this case the Traveller community ground).... A person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated. Section 3(2)(i) provides that: as between any two persons, thediscriminatory grounds ... are ...
that one is a member of the Traveller community and the other is not.”
5.2 A person making an allegation of discrimination under the Equal Status Act, 2000-2004 must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination treatment. Once a prima facie case of discrimination has been established by the complainants, the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent to rebut the presumption of discrimination.
5.3 I have identified the key issues to establish a prima facie case as follows:
(i) are the complainants covered by the discriminatory ground? (in these cases are they members of the Traveller community?)
(ii) were the complainants subjected to specific treatment?
(iii) is there evidence that the treatment received by the complainants was less favourable than the treatment someone, not covered by the discriminatory ground, would have received in similar circumstances?
5.4 I am now going to examine the issues I have identified above and consider whether the complainant has established a prima facie case.
5.5 Definition of Traveller
In the Equal Status Act, 2000 the Traveller community ground is defined as follows:
“means the community of people who are commonly called Travellers and who are identified (both by themselves and others ) as people with a share history, culture and traditions including, historically, a nomadic way of life on the island of Ireland”.
I am satisfied that the complainants are members of the Traveller community as defined by the Act. .
5.6 It was accepted by both the complainant and the respondent that the complainants were refused service on 31 December, 2001 so the second element of the test has been established.
5.7 I am now going to examine the third element of the test to see if the complainants have produced sufficient evidence which, in the absence of any convincing contradictory evidence by the respondent, would lead a reasonable person to conclude that discrimination had occurred. The complainants case is that they were refused service in the pub on 31 December, 2001 for no good reason and they believe this occurred because they are members of the Traveller community. The respondent’s case is that one of the complainants, Mr. Nevin, had too much alcohol consumed and it was the opinion of the respondent it would be unsafe to serve him any more drink at that time.
5.8 There was a complete conflict of evidence in relation to the events surrounding the incident so it is necessary for me to determine whose evidence I found to be more compelling. There were inconsistencies in the complainants’ case. Mr. Nevin submitted that he could not drink alcohol due to his medical condition yet he submitted in evidence that he had ordered a pint of shandy. Mrs. Nevin said that she could not drink alcohol due to diabetic condition, but her husband had ordered her a brandy.
5.9 The complainants did not provide any additional evidence apart from the direct evidence they presented themselves. They said that their son brought them to town that night but he was not called to give evidence in relation to the sobriety of Mr. Nevin.
5.10 The respondent produced an incident book and an entry dated 31 December, 2001 which stated that service was refused because Mr. Nevin had enough drink taken and he was told to come back another day. Mr. Gregg the proprietor stated in evidence that he made the entry after refusing service.
5.11 Overall I found that the evidence of the respondent witnesses to be more compelling than the evidence provided by the complainants. I am, therefore, satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the complainants have not established that they were treated less favourably than non-Travellers would have been treated in a similar situation. I find that they have failed to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment.
6. Decision
6.1 On the basis of the foregoing I find that Mr. Martin Nevin and Mrs. Winifred Nevin were not discriminated against by the respondent, Greggs Public House on the Traveller community ground contrary to Section 3(1) and 3(2)(i) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 and in terms of Section 5(1) of that Act.
______________________
Marian Duffy
Equality Officer
9th June, 2005