Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Minor, Ms. M

A Beauty Salon

Representatives

Sinead Lucey Free Legal Advice Centres

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00061183-001

24/01/2024

The complainants are alleging that they were discriminated against by the Respondent in relation to the provision of a services, namely beauty treatments, on the grounds that she is a member of the Travelling Community.

This is one of three claims submitted on 24th of January 2024 in respect of an incident which occurred on 28th of July 2023 when Ms. A and her two daughters Ms. M and Ms. K attended at the respondent beauty salon in pursuit of hair and nail treatments.   All matters were heard together in a single hearing.

It is submitted that the complaints relate to incidents which occurred on the afternoon of 28 July 2023 when Ms. A and her two daughters Ms. M and Ms. K attended that the Respondent’s premises to avail of its hairdressing and beauty services.

It is submitted that the complainants Ms. A and her two daughters Ms. M and Ms. K are members of the Traveller Community and were subjected to less favourable treatment by the respondent when they were forced to pay in advance for beauty treatments while other customers did not have to pay in advance.

In addition, it is submitted that the complainant Ms. M was subjected to unfair and discriminatory queuing  whereby she was left to queue for longer than other customers  It is also submitted that Ms. A was shouted at in front of other customers and the statement “are you trying to rob me” was levelled at her by the owner/manager Ms. L.  Ms A  was advised that this was due to an incident in previous weeks where other customers had left without paying and that the customers in question had also been members of the Traveller Community.

The Respondent did not attend the Hearing.

I am satisfied that the Respondent was notified of the time and date of the hearing but did not attend the scheduled hearing and did not provide any reason or explanation for same.    Attempts to contact her via telephone on the day of the hearing were unsuccessful.    The hearing proceeded in her absence.   A grace period was also allowed for the Respondent to attend.

Section 3 (1) 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 —

(i) exists,

(ii) existed but no longer exists,

(iii) may exist in the future, or

(iv) is imputed to the person concerned,

( 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,

 (2) As between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are:

( i) that one is a member of the travelling community and the other is not ( the Traveller Community ground”) 

Section 5 (1) provides that a person shall not discriminate in disposing of goods to the public generally or a section of the public or in providing a service, whether the disposal or provision is for consideration or otherwise and whether the service provided can be availed of only by a section of the public.

Section 42 provides that Anything done by a person in the course of his or her employment shall, in any proceedings brought under this Act, be treated for the purposes of this Act as done also by that person’s employer, whether or not it was done with the employee’s knowledge or approval.

The burden of proof which applies to claims of discrimination is well established in this jurisdiction. It provides, in effect, that where facts are established by, or on behalf of a Complainant from which discrimination may be inferred, it shall be for the Respondent to prove the absence of discrimination. The test requires the Complainant to prove the primary facts upon which she relies in seeking to raise an inference of discrimination. It is only if this initial burden is discharged and the Adjudication Officer is satisfied that the facts as established are of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination, that the burden passes to the Respondent.  If the complainant does not discharge the initial probative burden required by her, the case cannot succeed.

The Complainants allege that they were  discriminated against by the Respondent because they are members of the travelling community.

The Complainants are a mother Ms. A and her two daughters Ms. K and Ms. M, all members of the Traveller Community.

The complainant Ms. A advised the hearing that  Respondent is a  business, providing services associated with hair and beauty. The Business operates under a trading name named in the claim form and is owned and or managed by  Ms. L.

Ms. A advised the hearing that the complaints relate to incidents that occurred on the afternoon of 28 July 2023 when Ms. A and her two daughters Ms. M and Ms. K attended that the Respondent’s premises to avail of its hairdressing and beauty services.   Ms. A stated that this was to be a birthday treat for her daughter.

Ms. A stated that the premises allows for people to show up and simply queue for services without the need to make a prior appointment.

Ms. A advised the hearing that she asked one of the hairdressers about payment and was told they only accept cash.    She stated that she then  inquired about the cost of all the treatments including those selected by her two daughters.

Ms. A told the hearing that the hairdresser went up to a woman who the Complainant understands is the owner and or manager Ms. L and the hairdresser asked to get the final cost of all of the Complainants treatments

Ms. A stated that Ms.  L  then called her up to the desk and showed her an amount on a calculator.

Ms. A stated that she indicated that she wished to make sure all of the treatments were included in the figure shown and so asked for an itemised breakdown of the figure. At this point Ms L became infuriated and hit the counter with her two hands saying something to the effect “Do you want it for free” and further “Are you trying to rob me”.   Ms. A stated that Ms L also threatened to call the police.

Ms. A stated that there followed an interaction where Ms L continued to be rude and aggressive to Ms A at which point her daughter Ms. M who was still queuing had become upset and embarrassed and was suggesting to her Mother that they leave.

Ms. A stated that it was made clear to her that she would have to pay up front for all of the treatments requested by her and her daughters before receiving the treatments.  Ms, A stated that the Irish hairdresser then intervened and suggested that Ms. A  run across the road to the ATM and get the money in advance of getting the treatments.

Ms A advised the hearing that she left to go to the ATM but beforehand she had a conversation with the Irish hairdresser who advised Ms. A that the reason for Ms. L s behaviour was related to a group of girls who had not paid for treatments the previous week and whom she stated  were “also Travellers”.

Ms A advised the hearing that she was told to go to the ATM and withdraw the money for the treatments before she and her daughters were permitted to receive the treatments the had asked for.

Ms. A stated that other customers who were not members of the traveller community were not asked to pay for their treatments up front and that this amounts to discrimination on grounds of membership pf the Traveller Community.  Ms A stated that she knew this because she had asked two other customers who were not members of the Traveller Community whether they had been required to pay up front, and both confirmed that they had not been asked to do so.

Ms. A stated that she went to the ATM as suggested and withdrew the money for the treatments and even though she paid up front for the treatments her daughter Ms. M was not dealt with in order of the position she had in the queue and other customers who were not members of the Traveller Community were being called for treatments ahead of Ms. M despite her having queued for longer.  Ms. A stated that this was so obvious that another customer who was a member of the settled community at one point offered that Ms. M could go ahead of her in the queue as she could see that Ms. M  was visibly upset.

Ms. A stated that what should have been an enjoyable treat for a Mother and her two daughters became unpleasant, embarrassing and upsetting.

It is submitted that the treatment of the complainants by being asked to pay for their treatments in advance when other customers who were not members of the Traveller Community were not asked to pay in advance amounts to less favourable treatment on grounds of their membership of the Traveller Community.  In addition,  it is submitted that the treatment of the complainant Ms. A who was shouted at by the owner and or manager Ms. L and of Ms. M  who was  left to queue for longer than other customers who were not members of the Traveller Community also amounts to less favourable treatment on grounds of membership of the Traveller Community.

I am satisfied from the totality of the evidence adduced that this constitutes less favourable treatment of the complainants Ms, A, Ms. M and Ms K in the manner in which the Respondent’s services were provided and that the three complainants were discriminated against on grounds of their membership of the Traveller Community.  Accordingly,  I award the complainants Ms. A and each of her daughters Ms, M, and Ms. K, the sum of €500 each in compensation (i.e. €1,500 in total).  The individual awards per complainant are set out in each decision namely ADJ-00049883, ADJ-00049879 and ADJ-00049882.

I  find that the complaint is well founded and that the within complainant Ms. M was discriminated against by the respondent on grounds of membership of the Traveller Community.  Accordingly, I award the within Complainant Ms. M, €500 in compensation.