Christine Shannon, Frances Shannon and Marian Gibson (represented Martin Fitzgerald BL instructed by Delahunty, O’Connor & Co. Solicitors) V The Turks Head (represented by Nicholas Hosey BL)
Delegation under the Equal Status Act, 2000
These complaints were referred to the Director of Equality Investigations under the Equal Status Act 2000. In accordance with her powers under section 75 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 and under the Equal Status Act, 2000, the Director has delegated these complaints to me Mary O’Callaghan, 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.The hearing of the cases took place on Wednesday 23rd March 2005.
1. Dispute
1.1 This dispute concerns claims by Ms Christine Shannon, Ms Frances Shannon and Ms Marian Gibson that they were discriminated against on the ground of age when they sought entry to the Turk’s Head public house on 13th February 2002. The complainants allege that the treatment they received was contrary to Section 3 (2) (f) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 and that in not being provided with a service which is generally available to the public they were subjected to treatment contrary to Section 5(1) of the Act.
1.2 The complainants also lodged complaints on the gender ground and of victimisation but chose did not pursue these complaints at the hearing of the matter
2. Complainant’s Case
2.1 Evidence of Christine Shannon
Ms. Christine Shannon said she and her sister Frances drove together into the Temple Bar area of Dublin from their home in a south side suburb of the city on the evening of 3rd February 2002. They had come into town to attend a debate and they were to meet up with their friend Ms Gibson at the debate venue which was a theatre in the Temple Bar area. Neither Ms Shannon nor her sister had been drinking prior to leaving home and the venue they went to was unlicensed and no alcohol was being served there. They met up with Ms Gibson at the debate and decided to go for a drink after the debate and went to the Turk’s head public house which was located in a nearby hotel. All three ladies approached the door where Ms Shannon said two security men were standing. They said that it was mid-week and that there was not a queue at the door. As they neared the door one of the security men came forward and stood at the middle of the doorway, spoke to the women and told them that they were not getting in. When the women asked why, they were told by the doormen that they did not have to provide a reason but then were told that they were not regulars and the pub was full. She recalled that the doorman had a Scottish accent. Ms Shannon said they persisted in seeking an explanation for a while but as it was a cold night and they left the entrance to the pub and went back down the street to another premises to which they had no difficulty gaining access and where they were served. She said that the encounter at the door of the Turk’s Head took no longer than 3-4 minutes. While they were there two young girls aged approximately 17-20 years come out of the pub and smiled at them.
After leaving the pub where they were served, having had just one drink, they offered to walk Ms Gibson back to her car as she was travelling alone. As they passed the Turks head her sister approached the security men who were by then at another entrance to the Turk’s Head and enquired what their names were. Each of them said his name was “Michael”.
It was suggested to Ms. Shannon that the manager of the premises had formed the view that her sister and friend had been intoxicated but she said that they had not been drinking before going to the debate which was on from 8 to 10:30 p.m. and where no drink was served. She said they went directly to the Turk’s Head when they left the debate venue. She said that the manager of the Turk’s Head made no appearance while they were at the door that night. When they returned to the Turk’s Head later they’d had only one drink each. She said that she saw no older people getting into the Turk’s Head and from what she could see the place was not full. She believes that the doormen felt she did not fit the customer profile for the pub and that the women were considered too old.
2.2 Evidence of Frances Shannon
Ms Shannon is a sister of Ms Christine Shannon and attended the debate with her on the evening in question and together with their friend Ms Marian Gibson they went to the Turks Head. She said that she drove into town with her sister and Ms Gibson travelled separately and they met up at the debate. She believes it was about 10:40 to 10:45 p.m. At the door they were refused and were told that they were not regulars and that no reason for refusing them had to be given. She said that there was no suggestion that they were intoxicated. She said it was mid- week and the pub was not busy. Ms Shannon said that the encounter with the doormen lasted about five minutes and as it was a cold night they then walked away to another nearby pub where they walked in without any problem and were served. She said they had one drink there and as they were escorting Ms Gibson back to her car a short time later at about mid-night, they saw the same two doormen who had refused them at the Turks head earlier standing at another door of the premises. She said that she approached them and asked them their names and each said Michael Sullivan and started laughing. She said that she decided at that time that she was going to phone the pub and enquire what their policy was on admission. She said that herself and her sister went back to their car and went home. Ms Shannon was asked if she had seen a third staff member at the Turks Head and she said that she had not seen any other staff but the two security men at the door.
The following morning she phoned the Turk’s Head and asked for the manager or owner. She asked what the policy was with regard to admitting patrons and was told “neat dress”. She asked “What if you are not a regular?” and she was asked “Who said that?” and she described the doormen. Ms Shannon said she thinks she was told that the matter would be looked in to. She didn’t receive any further feed back. She said she found the whole experience embarrassing and humiliating and she went to her solicitor because she felt she deserved an apology. Her solicitor wrote to the pub on the 4th March and a reply was received from Ms Rita Barcoe (this was submitted in evidence on behalf of the complainants). It was not an apology for the incident. Ms Shannon said all she wanted was an explanation and apology and she was not seeking any compensation. When asked if she was surprised that she was refused she said she was more than surprised and that she was shocked. She initially thought it was all a dreadful mistake and she had discussed it with her friends on occasions afterwards. She said that she believes the women were refused because of their ages which were older than the Turk’s Head considered desirable. Ms Shannon was adamant that none of the party had any drink taken that night before they went to the second pub after being refused service in the Turk’s Head.
2.3 Evidence of Marian Gibson
Ms Gibson said she met with her friends the Shannons at the debate venue in the Temple Bar area at about 8 p.m. as arranged. She confirmed that no drink was being served at the debate and that she had not been drinking herself as she had driven into town from her home in a north side suburb. After the debate herself and the Shannons went to the Turks Head. She had arranged with another friend, who had organised the debate, to go there as some of the attendees and speakers were going following the event. She has since been told that these people did get into the Turk’s Head and that it was not full that night. She said that in her opinion both of the doormen were equally involved in the refusal of the party and that they were blocking the door. She also said the group remained there for no more than five minutes and they were waiting to see if any of the others they were to meet were coming along. They then went to a nearby bar where they were served without a problem. Ms Gibson said that her car was parked near the Turks Head and as the three women were going towards it on their return from the pub Ms Frances Shannon approached the doormen to get their names. She said that she continued walking towards her car as Ms Shannon was talking to the men. She said she noticed 2 or 3 young women exiting the pub at that time. She believed they were about 19-20 years old. She said she does not have any memory of meeting the bar manager that night. Ms Gibson said she was shocked by the refusal and all that any of the three women wanted was an explanation for the refusal and this was the substance of their conversation with the doormen. She believed the refusal was age related.
2.4 Evidence of Ann O’Sullivan
Ms O’Sullivan said that she was one of the organisers of the debate that the three complainants attended on the night of 13th February 2002. She confirmed that no alcohol was served at the debate venue and that the complainants were not intoxicated. As the debate could have led to some robust discussion she was careful to ensure that the people attending did not have drink taken. She said that she had arranged with Ms Gibson to meet in the Turk’s Head following the debate. She also confirmed that she gained entry to the Turk’s Head and that the age profile of the customers that night was generally young and also that the pub was not full.
3. Respondent’s case
3.1 Evidence of Rita Barcoe
Ms Barcoe said she is the General Manager of the Turks Head and that she had been there for 10 years. She said that the Turk’s Head was part of a complex of 4 bars in the Parliament Hotel and the overall capacity of the bars was 1,400. She said that the age profile of the clientele was from 18 years upwards but that the Turks Head tended to get a mixed age group of customers. On Wednesdays and Sundays the customer’s ages would generally have been from 30 years upwards as there were Tango lessons on the premises. The busiest nights in the pub were Thursday Friday and Saturday and she agreed that the pub would not be full on Wednesday.
Ms Barcoe said that customers would be refused for drink related reasons, occasionally due to their style of dress and also for loud or obnoxious behaviour. Regarding the incident complained of, she said it first came to her attention the following day when one of the ladies phoned her. She said that she told her that the doorman could refuse and it was the doormen’s opinion that the ladies were intoxicated. She said that the manager had gone to the door and considered that the situation was being handled satisfactorily. She said that numbers of people could be refused on any given night. It varied. She said she did recall a “refined connected person” being refused in the past because he was considered to be intoxicated. She said that mistakes could be made as it takes a minute or two for the doorman to weigh up the potential customer. She said she could not be sure of the way this situation was handled as she was not there herself. However, she did say that her staff were aware of the provisions of the Equal Status Act and that the premises had a door policy. Ms Barcoe said her only contact with the complainants was through the phone call she had with one of them following the incident. And as far as she knew none of her staff had had any dealings with the complainants since the incident.
Ms Barcoe said there would have been people of a wide range of ages in the pub on the evening complained of because the Tango lessons tended to attract an older crowd and hobbyists and she said that she believed that at least one of the attendees would be over 80 years of age. Ms Barcoe said that the general age range of those attending the Tango classes was from twenty to sixty years old but the majority of them were over 30. She said that the Turk’s Head welcomed customers of all ages and that in the Temple Bar Area it would probably attract an older crowd relative to the other pub businesses in the area. She denied that the Turk’s Head would discriminate on the ground of age or that the complainants were refused because of their ages. Ms Barcoe said that they catered for a wide range of events targeted at different age groups and that the primary aim was to host anything that would create business. Age was not a factor.
3.2 Evidence of Rory Keogh
Mr Rory Keogh said that he was the bar manager on duty on the night of the incident complained of. He said that he was an experienced bar manager having worked in other well known premises before coming to work on the Turk’s Head in 1999. Mr. Keogh said that he recalled the incident complained of as he was at the door talking to the security staff when the women sought entry to the pub between 10:30 and 10:45 on the evening complained of. Mr.Keogh said that he was not the person who refused them entry. That person was “Jock”, a doorman on duty that night. He said he believed the women were intoxicated, by there demeanour on the night. He said they were standing talking aloud with slurred speech, stumbling and had obviously glazed eyes He also said that he did not speak to the complainants. Mr. Keogh said that the doormen on duty were not in attendance at the hearing because they no longer worked in the Turks’s Head and he believed that they no longer resided in Ireland. Mr. Keogh said that there was no strict policy regarding entry to the Turk’s Head and in general everyone over age and sober would be allowed in. He said he was aware of the Equal Status Act and that its provisions had been brought to his attention by Ms Barcoe. Mr. Keogh was asked why the complainants when they asked for the names of the security men were not given a satisfactory response. He said that they would give it to the Gardai if requested to do so or would advise people to ask for the manager on duty.
He said that later that night the doorman came to him and told him that the ladies had come back and that they were very abusive and said that they would be making a complaint.
Mr. Keogh said that he had never seen the complainants before that night. He thought he might have seen Ms Gibson in the pub after that night. He said their ages were not a factor in the decision to refuse them and that the evening in question was a Tango night when many of the customers would have been in their 50s. Mr Keogh said that there was no formal written report of the incident as he did not consider what had happened to be an “incident” and also the incident books had been mislaid during renovations. Mr. Keogh was asked why he had not made himself known to the complainants and he replied that they had never asked. He said that he believed the complainants were making up their report that the door men called themselves Michael Sullivan.
4. Conclusions of the Equality Officer
4.1 First, I must assess whether the complainants have succeeded in establishing prima facie cases of discrimination on the age ground. In order to do so the complainants must satisfy three criteria in relation to their complaints. They must (1) establish they are covered by a discriminatory ground (in this case age ground); (2) it must be established that the specific treatment alleged by the complainants actually occurred and (3) there must be evidence that the treatment received by the complainant was less favourable than the treatment someone who was not covered by the discriminatory ground would have received in similar circumstances.
4.2 It is not disputed between the parties the all three complainants were the ages submitted at the hearing thus satisfying (1) above. The evidence in this case, while consistent from on the fact that the three complainants sought entry to the Turk’s Head on the evening in question shortly after 10:30 p.m. and were refused, is contradictory between the parties as to what actually occurred at the door. Yet the very fact of their refusal is sufficient to satisfy (2) above. The third criterion requires more discussion.
4.3 The evidence of all three complainants is that they had not been drinking and the fact that two of them were driving, although not a guaranteed verification of that fact would lend support to the contention that they had not been drinking. All of them gave evidence that no drink was served at the venue for the debate they had attended and a witness who also attended that event and was one of the organisers confirmed this fact. She also said that she did not believe that the women had been drinking prior to arriving at the debate, having spoken to them there. There was evidence that an arrangement was made to go to the Turk’s Head after the debate for a drink where people would meet up to talk about the debate. The complainants’ evidence was that when they sought entry they were told they were not getting in and the only reason they could think of for the refusal was their age. This was reinforced in their minds by the fact that the saw young women in their late teens or early twenties leaving the premises at the time they were seeking entry. At least one of the complainant also said that she could see in through the door of the pub and that it was not full. All three of the complainants spoke of having encountered only two doormen at the entrance to the pub yet Mr. Keogh’s evidence was that he was there also (although he did not make himself known to the women). The women’s evidence was that when they later sought the names of the doormen they were give one name for both.
4.4 In contrast to the evidence of the complainants the evidence of the respondent proposes that the women were intoxicated. While Ms Barcoe was not present at the time of the incident and only heard of it the day after when one of the complainants phoned her, Mr. Keogh gave evidence that he was at the door at the time the women arrived and he gave a description of the complainants as being “intoxicated, standing and talking aloud with slurred speech, stumbling and having visibly glazed eyes.” Neither of the two doormen, who were alleged to have refused the complainants, were present to give evidence of the incident. Mr. Keogh and Ms Barcoe said that people of all ages including Tango artistes were present.
4.5 I must decide, therefore whose evidence I found to be more persuasive and on the evidence overall I consider that on the balance of probabilities the complainants account of the events on the night is a closer representation of what occurred to that of the respondent. While there may have been Tango sessions in the premises at the time, I do not think the complainants were being assessed at the door as potential clients for this but were being viewed as customers of the pub. There is no suggestion in any of the evidence that the Tango session was mentioned to the complainants either on the night of the incident or later when Ms Shannon complained to Ms Barcoe. Neither was it mentioned in Ms Barcoe’s reply to the complainants’ solicitor nor that the bar manager Mr. Keogh was present when the women were refused. I have not been convinced that the bar manager was present at the time the complainants were refused. The evidence leans me toward the conclusion that the complainants had not been drinking before going to the Turk’s Head immediately following their attendance at the debate that night and when they returned about one hour later, their evidence that they’d had only one drink in another pub is credible. The only evidence of customers being seen in the pub is that of the young girls leaving and the evidence of the complainant’s witness that she did not see older people in the Turk’s Head that night and that she is some years younger than the complainants. I consider, therefore that the complainants have established prima facie cases of discrimination on the age ground which the respondents in their evidence have not rebutted.
5. Decision
5.1 I find that Christine Shannon DEC S2005-045, Frances Shannon DEC-S2005-046, and Marian Gibson DEC-S2005-047 were subjected to discriminatory treatment on the age ground when they sought service in the Turk’s Head on 13th February 2002 and I order the respondent to pay each of the complainants the following as redress for the effects of the discrimination suffered: Christine Shannon €500, Frances Shannon €500 and Marian Gibson €500.
Mary O Callaghan
Equality Officer
21st June 2005