Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Minor

Airtastic Cork Limited (Amended at the hearing)

Representatives

  Father

 MDM 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-00063483-001

14/05/2024

The Complainant is a minor who was 12 years of age on the date of the alleged discrimination. It was his complaint that he was discriminated against on the grounds of disability by the Respondent and was not reasonably accommodated. Both the Complainant’s parents gave evidence on affirmation. Time was given to the Complainant’s father to review the submission during the hearing.

Mr Shane Liddy, General Manager at the time, gave evidence on affirmation. The Respondent’s solicitor confirmed the registered name of the Respondent was Airtastic Cork Limited and the registered business address was detailed on the Complaint Form. The Respondent accepted it refused entry to the Complainant with its reasoning being on health and safety grounds.

During the hearing the Respondent relied upon a document which was understood to be submissions which the Complainant received. The Respondent was directed to provide a copy to the Workplace Relations Commission file by close of business Friday, 17 October 2025. An email was received from the Respondent’s solicitor containing an email dated 15 March 2024, letter dated 11 April 2024, a link to the website and a wavier document. While there was reference to website and email in the Complainant’s father’s evidence and Mr Liddy’s evidence, however the letter of 11 April 2024 or the wavier document were not opened in evidence at the hearing. Consequently, I cannot consider these documents.

Further time was given the two Respondent to ensure that the submissions were received and again it furnished the ES.2 Form it completed. Therefore, I am satisfied that the Respondent has been given every opportunity to set out its complaint.

Where the Complainant is a minor, it has been decided not to name him where it amounts to a special circumstance.

The Complainant's mother submitted an equal status complaint on behalf of the Complainant, who is legally blind since birth and uses a cane.

The Complainant’s father gave evidence that on 4 February 2024, the Complainant was refused entry to the inflatable play area during a friend’s birthday party, with the manager citing health and safety concerns due to the Complainant’s disability.

Despite having the required special socks and having previously attending the same venue without issue including hosting his own party in 2020 in the Respondent’s inflatable play centre, he was refused entry on 4 February 2024.

In an effort to resolve the situation subsequently, the Complainant's father offered to arrange free staff training from an Orientation Officer, but this offer was rejected. The manager maintained that it was unsafe for the Complainant to participate under their health and safety rules. He did acknowledge that the Complainant was offered a game of bowling on the day and again in correspondence with Mr Liddy. The Complainant's father expressed deep frustration, noting that the Complainant had been accommodated without issue at the Respondent’s venue and at other similar venues, and he could not understand the Respondent refusal to make reasonable accommodations in this instance.

During cross-examination, the Complainant's father confirmed that the Complainant was using a cane at the time of the birthday party in question, as he had on previous occasions, including his own birthday party held at the same venue in 2020. He stated that the Complainant has always been legally blind and that there had been no deterioration in his condition between 2020 and the date of the incident, stating, “you can’t be more blind.”

When asked whether he accepted that the refusal of admission was based on safety concerns for the Complainant and others, he rejected this.

The Complainant's father acknowledged familiarity with Respondent’s website, having previously booked his son’s birthday party on it. He was asked whether he was aware of the section dealing with capability and special assistance. It was put to him that the Complainant was refused entry due to this decreased mobility.

The Complainant stated that he does not have reduced mobility and emphasised that mobility is not an issue for him with reference to his medical history.

He referenced a recent visit to a similar inflatable play venue, where he was allowed to participate without any difficulty.

It was submitted by the Complainant’s father that the Complainant would not have brought the cane into the inflatable area.

On the day of the incident at the Respondent’s, the Complainant explained that he did not enter the designated waiting area before the activity because Denise Casey, the manager, informed his mother that he could not participate. When the Complainant attempted to speak directly to Ms. Casey, she refused to engage with him and would only speak to his mother.

The Complainant’s mother gave evidence that she attended with the Complainant on 4 February 2024 and was told by a member of staff that the that the Complainant could not enter the inflatable play area due to his vision impairment.

It was her evidence that she questioned the decision, explaining that the Complainant had attended the venue many times before without issue and had the bag of the required special socks. Despite her explanation, the staff member did budge and brought in the manager, Denise Casey. When asked to speak directly to the Complainant, Ms. Casey refused, choosing to speak only to his mother. The Complainant was offered bowling as an alternative activity, but his mother felt this was not a suitable substitute for celebrating with his friends at the party. As a result, the family had no choice but to leave the venue.

There were no questions put to the Complainant’s mother in cross examination.

Upon inquiry the Complainant’s mother was asked if she offered to go with her son. It was her evidence that she had gone with him in the past and “shadows” him which meant standing a reasonable distance away from him, watching him to ensure he is safe. She added “this is what we do on a daily basis for him.”

Mr. Shane Liddy, General Manager of Airtastic Cork, described the venue as an inflatable activity centre primarily for children, with an ethos of inclusion for all.

On the day in question, the staff had to make a safety assessment. Mr. Liddy explained that all staff are trained to assess the suitability of participants for activities, and that the initial staff member flagged a potential health and safety concern regarding the Complainant, which led to the involvement of the manager, Denise Casey.

It was Mr Liddy’s evidence that the inflatable zone is a large, constantly moving structure with uneven surfaces, unlike a typical backyard bouncy castle, and poses risks such as falls or collisions particularly for someone with a visual impairment who may not be able to anticipate movement around them. It was his evidence that due to the nature of the activity the surface is uneven.

Mr. Liddy acknowledged that the Complainant may have attended previously, but could not confirm the details, and stated that staff would have been expected to make the same safety-based decision at any time. He affirmed that the refusal was made solely on health and safety grounds and was appropriate under the circumstances.

Reference was made to the Respondent’s website and the Capability and Special Assistance section on the website.

He submitted that while the Respondent aims to include every child, he stood by the decision and noted that alternative activities such as bowling, or golf were offered as safer options. He also referenced communication with the Complainant’s family, reiterating Respondent’s inclusive ethos.

Mr Liddy was cross examined but, on a matter, relating to a third party who was not present to give evidence at the hearing.

Upon inquiry the General Manager was asked what the training consisted of for employees to make an assessment. It was his evidence that employees are trained to make a “judgment call” and look out for any condition which would cause the child themselves or other children harm. It was his evidence that there are kids running around, bumping into each other and children must be able to see to ensure they can prepare themselves for a fall and be aware of the dangers around them. It was his evidence that the Complainant was assessed on the fact he had a cane when he entered the facility.

Asked what the Respondent’s ethos, Mr Liddy stated that other children had been turned away and it was purely on a health and safety basis.

Asked for the training documentation and the risk assessment and/or the safety statement, Mr Liddy stated he was not sure what had been submitted in advance of the hearing.

Section 2 of the Equal Status Act 2000, as amended, (the “Act”) defines disability as follows:

“disability” means—

(a) the total or partial absence of a person’s bodily or mental functions, including the absence of a part of a person’s body,

(b) the presence in the body of organisms causing, or likely to cause, chronic disease or illness,

(c) the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of a person’s body,

(d) a condition or malfunction which results in a person learning differently from a person without the condition or malfunction, or

(e) a condition, disease or illness which affects a person’s thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgement or which results in disturbed behaviour;”

Section 4 of the Act sets out the requirement to provide reasonable accommodation:

“4.—(1) For the purposes of this Act discrimination includes a refusal or failure by the provider of a service to do all that is reasonable to accommodate the needs of a person with a disability by providing special treatment or facilities, if without such special treatment or facilities it would be impossible or unduly difficult for the person to avail himself or herself of the service.

(2) For the purposes of this Act discrimination includes a refusal or failure by the provider of a service to do all that is reasonable to accommodate the needs of a person with a disability by providing special treatment or facilities, if without such special treatment or facilities it would be impossible or unduly difficult for the person to avail himself or herself of the service.

(3) A refusal or failure to provide the special treatment or facilities to which subsection (1) refers shall not be deemed reasonable unless such provision would give rise to a cost, other than a nominal cost, to the provider of the service in question.”

Section 4 (6) defines a provider:

“(6) In this section—

“provider of a service” means—

(a) the person disposing of goods in respect of which section 5(1) applies,

(b) the person responsible for providing a service in respect of which section 5(1) applies,

(c) the person disposing of any estate or interest in premises in respect of which section 6(1)(a) applies,

(d) the person responsible for the provision of accommodation or any related services or amenities in respect of which section 6(1)(c) applies,

(e) an educational establishment within the meaning of subsection (1) of section 7 in relation to any of the matters referred to in subsection (2) of that section, or

(f) a club within the meaning of section 8(1) in respect of admission to membership or a service offered to its members,

as the case may be, and “service” shall be construed accordingly;

“providing”, in relation to the special treatment or facilities to which subsection (1) refers, includes making provision for or allowing such treatment or facilities, and cognate words shall be construed accordingly.”

Burden of Proof

Section 38A of the Acts sets out the burden of proof:

“38A.—(1) Where in any proceedings 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.

(2) This section is without prejudice to any other enactment or rule of law in relation to the burden of proof in any proceedings which may be more favourable to the person.

(3) Where, in any proceedings arising from a reference of a matter by the Authority to the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission under section 23(1), facts are established by or on behalf of the Authority from which it may be presumed that prohibited conduct or a contravention mentioned in that provision has occurred, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.”

The Supreme Court in Nano Nagle v Daly [2019] IESC 63 confirmed that the test was one of “reasonableness and proportionality” when evaluating what reasonable accommodation measures had been considered. While the case was initiated under the Employment Equality legislation, the principle applies to this complaint equally, where the Supreme Court re-iterated the principle that a Respondent must demonstrate that they have fully considered the reasonable accommodation question.

McMenamin J. at para 66 of the judgement, when referring to the obligation of a Respondent in affording reasonable accommodation, stated:

 “What is in question here is not a simple common law ‘duty of care’, ‘balancing’ exercise, as to what is “reasonable”, but rather one where the balance is significantly tilted in order, where necessary, to impose positive obligations to ensure that all practicable steps are taken. This is different from refraining or abstaining from doing something. The legislative object therein should be seen as to do everything that is reasonable and practicable, both procedurally, and in substance, ensures the treatment of a person with a disability is placed at the same level as a person without a disability. The obligation is not, therefore, simply to refrain from certain actions, but, where necessary, to engage in positive action. In colloquial terms, it can impose a duty to “go the extra mile”.The Court confirmed that the test was one of “reasonableness and proportionality” when evaluating what reasonable accommodation measures had been considered. However, albeit an employment equality issue, the Supreme Court re-iterated the principle that a respondent must demonstrate that they have fully considered the reasonable accommodation question.

In the more recent decision ofA Minor and The Ladies Gaelic Football Association ADJ-00046477, the Adjudication Officer the“Respondent did not “go the extra mile” in this case. This is a somewhat contradictory direction to that signposted in its own Code of Ethics, where inclusivity is portrayed as a core value.” Where there was no evidence of practical steps being taken to carry out an assessment before a decision regarding the removal of a reasonable accommodation or a minor Gaelic player was made.

Findings

The Complainant’s disability was not at issue.

There was no medical evidence, or any other evidence, to support the Respondent’s contention that the Complainant’s disability had deteriorated. The Complainant’s father’s evidence that the Complainant has been registered as blind is accepted, along with the Complainant’s own evidence that he does not have mobility issues.

While a Respondent is entitled to defend itself, the particular line of questioning by the Respondent on the alleged deterioration of the Complainant’s disability was seriously inappropriate for two reasons: first, the complete lack of medical evidence put forward or relied upon by the Respondent; and second, Mr. Liddy’s own evidence that he had no knowledge of the Complainant attending on any other occasion, including his own birthday party. Consequently no supporting evidence for the contention that the Complainant’s disability had deteriorated from 2020 to 2024.

The fact that the Complainant was refused entry to the Respondent’s inflatable area, a provider of a service due to his disability was not disputed.

Consequently, I find that the Complainant has discharged the burden of proof and established that prohibited conduct occurred due to his disability.

The burden then shifts to the Respondent to prove that the discrimination was objectively justified.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was refused entry on health and safety grounds.  However, no supporting documentary evidence was provided. Two employees were referred to by the Complainant in their evidence the first employee who made the initial decision, and the manager but neither was present at the hearing to give evidence. Therefore, the evidence is limited to the general evidence of Mr. Liddy regarding the Respondent’s approach.

Based on Mr. Liddy’s evidence, the Respondent’s submission that its ethos is inclusive of all children is not accepted, given that the Complainant was refused entry for having a cane. The Respondent relied upon the Competence and Special Assistance section of the website. The website provides a list of conditions that limit a person taking part in the activities: 

“You are in good physical condition

You do not have any pre-existing medical conditions including breathing, heart, back, neck (to include atlanto-axial instability*), bone or muscle conditions

You are not pregnant

You weigh less than 19stone and 3lb

You do not lie or sit on the trampoline/inflatable beds (this will mean you need to be able to stand and support your own body weight)

You must complete a personal risk acknowledgeable form/waiver.

The team at Airtastic are not medically qualified and may not be able to fully assess the capacity of individual participants with additional support requirements to undertake an activity. It remains your responsibility to undertake an assessment prior to undertaking the activity. This may be done with a member of our management team so that we are able to support any requirements you may need, and if they can be accommodated. Airtastic will deal with each customer on an individual basis and use all information that is provided by the customer with regards to their own capability and personal health requirements.

In each case we will try to accommodate all additional support requirements; however we do need to ensure the safety of the centre, and must consider all other customers within the park at the time of request. With this in mind if this conflicts with individual needs we must give the centre safety a priority.

*Atlanto-axial instability – neck instability commonly associated with Down’s syndrome.

These are the symptoms you need to look out for:

Pain at a spot near the hard bump behind the ear

A stiff neck which doesn’t get better quickly

Unusual head posture

Changes in the way a person walks so that they may look unsteady on their feet

Change in a person’s ability to manipulate things with their hands

Trampoline/Inflata bouncing may cause more of a risk to people with this condition than others. An assessment must be completed by a member of our management team alongside a parent/guardian of the participant to ensure that they do not present any of the above symptoms and are fit and able to partake in the activities provided.”

There was no evidence that the Complainant fell into any of these categories nor was there evidence of whether he had completed a personal risk acknowledgeable form/wavier.

There was no evidence that the Respondent sought to engage with the Complainant or his parents on the day to gather all the information as regards the Complainant’s “capability and personal health requirements”.

There was no evidence that the Complainant was a danger to himself or others in the inflated area. 

While it is accepted that the Respondent must have regard for the health and safety of its customers and staff, this is not a blanket excuse to make a unilateral decision to refuse the Complainant simply because he uses a cane. I find that the Respondent relied upon general assumptions about the Complainant which, based on the evidence submitted, were entirely incorrect, specifically, that he had reduced mobility. Furthermore, where the Complainant travels for school in Dublin, away from his home and parents, staying in accommodation for the school week further demonstrates his extensive abilities. 

For completeness, the Respondent did not provide any evidence from the insurer or any other policy or procedure to support its position.

While it is not clear whether the suggestion for a parent to attend with the Complainant was not raised by the Complainant or his mother on 4 February 2024, it appears from the evidence that a decision had already been made by the Respondent, and the staff were not open to reconsideration despite its own policy.

This was further evident from the Complainant’s father’s evidence and his contact with the Respondent after the event where the email did make reference to the offer of a companion by the Orientation Officer as documented in the email of 4 Marach 2024. This would have been a simple, reasonable accommodation to allow the Complainant to join his classmates in celebrating his friend’s birthday party.

In conclusion, I am satisfied that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that he was discriminated against by being refused entry to the Respondent’s inflatable area on 4 February 2024. I further find that the Complainant was not afforded reasonable accommodation for his disability on that day.

I am satisfied that there is no evidence to support the Respondent’s claim that its decision to refuse the Complainant entry was objectively justified.

For the reasons outlined above, I find that the Respondent engaged in prohibited conduct by refusing the Complainant entry on 4 February 2024 because of his disability and not affording the Complainant reasonable accommodation for his disability also on 4 February 2024.  

I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the compensation in the sum of €3,000 for the effects of the prohibited conduct.

I further direct that the Respondent review its heath and safety policies and training to include reasonable accommodations it can put in place to fulfil its own ethos of being an inclusive facility for all children, including but not limited to engaging constructively with National Council for the Blind of Ireland (NCBI). I direct this to be undertaken within three months from the date of this decision and implemented thereafter.

Equal Status – Minor