Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Nadine  Lattimore

Nm Palmerston Retail Investments t/a Centra Parnell Street

Representatives

  Self

Morgane Conaty, BL, instructed by Daniel McLoughlin, Comyn Kelleher Tobin 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-00070644-001

08/04/2025

The Complainant submitted a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 08/04/2025 alleging that she had been discriminated against by the Respondent on the ground of disability and a failure to provide reasonable accommodation.  The Complainant submits that this occurred when she entered the Respondent’s store and a staff member told her that dogs were not allowed in the store.  The Respondent denies that it discriminated against the Complainant and acknowledges that the staff member did not instantly recognise that the Complainant’s dog was in fact a Guide Dog but immediately rectified the matter when he did notice that it was a Guide Dog.  The Complainant was not refused access and was told by two employees that Guide Dogs were welcome in the store.

It is a condition precedent to bringing any such matter before the Workplace Relations Commission that the individual Complainant shall have already notified the Respondent in writing (usually in the form of an ES.1) of the nature of the allegation and the intention to seek such redress if not satisfied with the Respondent’s response. This notice in writing shall be brought within two months of the said prohibited conduct or within two months of the last instance of same.

A Respondent may choose to reply with an explanation for the treatment by returning the attached ES.2 Form.

The Complainant served a notice on the Respondent by way of registered post on 04/01/2025.  The Respondent replied by email on 08/01/2025.  The Complainant confirmed in her complaint form that the last date of discrimination was 18/12/2024.  This complaint was received in the WRC on 08/04/2025.

The Complainant in her submission outlines that she is registered blind and is a user of a Guide Dog for over 17 years.  She relies on her Guide Dog to access the Respondent’s services.  This dog had the standard working equipment as issued by the Irish Guide Dogs for the Blind and includes the white leather body harness and two identifiers and a high visibility band and yellow handle with a sign which states “Please don’t distract me – I’m a working Guide Dog”.  The Complainant also carries an identification card which outlines the registered status of her Guide Dog.

The Complainant gave evidence on affirmation.  She outlined that on 18/12/2024 she went to the Respondent’s store at about 09.00am.  On entering the store, a staff member told her that dogs were not allowed in the store.  She stopped entering and then heard someone calling out to her that she could come in.  She sought the store manager and she spoke with him and explained that her Guide Dog has the right to be in the store.  This manager identified himself as Mr Noel Dunne and he gave her his contact details and she left.  She stood outside the store and then she re-entered and sought the manager to obtain company details.  She left after this and did not return.  She commenced email contact with the store the following day.

It is the Complainant’s submission that she was discriminated against as it was very obvious that she was a Guide Dog owner and had a disability.  The Complainant believes that she should not have encountered any negative interaction on the Respondent’s premises.  She was not afforded her rights and the discrimination was blatant.

The Complainant made four audio recordings of her interactions with the Respondent and she obtained two CCTV recordings from the Respondent of the incident on 18/12/2024.  The Complainant requested that these be viewed by the Adjudication Officer and that she would be allowed submit the audio recordings.  The Respondent did not object to the introduction of these at the hearing as they had possession of these.  The recordings were viewed and listened to on a few occasions at the hearing.

The Complainant also submitted that there were a number of other issues in relation to this matter which compounded things.  She was not given the Respondent’s correct legal entity when she requested this.  She was also told that it was not illegal for an employee to refuse entry to the dog if he did not know that it was a Guide Dog.    The Complainant gave evidence that the CCTV was viewed on her behalf and she submits that this was not the actual recording but a recording made of the CCTV from a mobile phone.  The Complainant also submits that she was not given the full CCTV as the two clips were numbered two and five and she queried what happened to numbers one, three and four.

The Complainant submitted that in the first CCTV clip her Guide Dog is clearly visible while in the second CCTV clip the Guide Dog and harness are clearly visible at all times.  The staff member is in an open space and had a clear line of sight.

The Complainant also submitted that the Respondent’s reply to her ES1 is not factually correct.  The Respondent stated that the employee was kneeling while packing the coffee but on the CCTV he is standing in the line of sight of the Guide Dog.

Cross examination: the Complainant:

The Complainant was cross examined by Ms Conaty, BL on behalf of the Respondent.  It was put to the Complainant that when she entered the store, she was told that there were no dogs allowed and she was immediately told that Guide Dogs were allowed.  The Complainant confirmed that there was a mention of something like that.  The Complainant confirmed that she then went to the till area. 

It was put to the Complainant that once she was told by Mr Ashraf that she could come in he apologised.  She confirmed that was the intention.  It was then put to the Complainant that Mr Dunne, store owner, immediately came to her and said that Guide Dogs were allowed in and he invited her in.  She confirmed that was correct.  The Complainant agreed that she was immediately told that she could come in.   The Complainant also agreed that at no point was she told that she could not come in.  She agreed and clarified that she was told that no dogs were allowed.  It was put to the Complainant that no one stopped her from coming in and the fact is that she was invited in.  The Complainant agreed that this happened “after the fact”.

In response to a question from the Adjudication Officer the Complainant stated that she did not continue into the store as she felt that she should not have to go through these steps.  She felt that there was a refusal to allow her Guide Dog into the store.

Closing Submission:

In a closing submission the Complainant outlined that the basis of her complaint is that this was an access refusal on the part of the Respondent.  She should not have her rights questioned.  She was treated in a discriminatory manner and this was compounded by misleading or withholding information that could have helped her.  The evidence from the Respondent was that there were no training records and there was no policy produced in relation to the “No Dogs Policy”.

The Complainant also noted that she received the CCTV from the Respondent on 28/07/2025 and this confirms that the staff member was not kneeling.  The Respondent did not dispute that she was told that no dogs were allowed.

The Complainant believes that she was treated less favourably and she was not provided with any reasonable accommodation.  It is clear from the audio recordings that she was told that the staff member was not told about allowing Guide Dogs in the store but in his evidence, Mr Dunne stated that he had told the staff member about this.  The Complainant disputes that this was a spur of the moment decision by the employee as she was visible to him before the interaction.

The Complainant submitted that the Respondent’s reference to the Glimmer Man case is not relevant and comparable to her case.  The Complainant also submitted that the evidence of a request for special treatment was that her presence on the Respondent’s premises is actually a request for special treatment.

The Complainant also submitted that if the Respondent’s staff were unsure about the policy in relation to Guide Dogs there was no query raised about whether her dog was a Guide Dog.    The Complainant also disputes that the employee immediately corrected himself.  The correction was made by another employee.  It is the Complainant’s position that the Respondent did not do all that was reasonable to accommodate her.  There was no training policy or no training records available.

The Respondent operates a Centra store in Dublin City centre.  The location of the premises is challenging.  The Respondent has a policy of restricting the entry of dogs into the premises as it has issues with local youths calling to the premises with large aggressive and dangerous dogs which can intimidate customers and are a danger to both customers and staff.  The Respondent also sells food and there are hygiene and safety regulations and issues to consider.  The Respondent is clear that this policy does not apply to working dogs or assistance dogs.  The Respondent has operated the store since 2006 and welcomes approximately 10,000 customers each week into the store.  The customer base includes working dogs and assistance dogs for local children.  During this time the Respondent has never received a complaint under the Equal Status Act in relation to its dog policy.

The Respondent accepts that the Complainant has a disability within the meaning of s. 2 of the Equal Status Act.  The Respondent also accepts that the formalities in relation to the submission of an ES1 form have been complied with.

Mr Noel Dunne gave evidence on oath on behalf of the Respondent.  He confirmed that he is the owner/manager of the store since 30/11/2006.  The store is located in the Parnell Street/Moore Street area of Dublin City Centre. 

Mr Dunne confirmed that the store operates a no dogs policy.  This is because of previous issues with dogs and the food hygiene regulations. This policy does not apply to working dogs.  Mr Dunne confirmed that he makes all employees aware of this policy when they commence working. During this training he explains that Guide Dogs and assistance dogs are exempt from this policy.  Mr Dunne confirmed that there are a number of Guide Dogs and working dogs who frequently come into the store.  Mr Dunne confirmed that he never refused access to a Guide Dog or a working dog and this was his first complaint since he opened the store in 2006 in relation to working dogs.

Mr Dunne also gave evidence that since the Complainant submitted her complaint, he has again made sure that all employees are clear that working dogs are allowed into the store.

Mr Dunne was asked to clarify the CCTV an in particular the Complainant’s contention that she was not provided with the complete set.  Mr Dunne explained that there are 14 CCTV cameras covering the shop area.  These are numbered 1 to 14 and when the video clips are viewed the number refers to the camera number.  This number does not link to anything else.  Mr Dunne stated that the Complainant was provided with all the CCTV from the two cameras covering the area where the incident occurred.

Mr Dunne confirmed that he was the person who harvested the CCTV.  While doing so he discovered that there was an issue with the download function and  in order to preserve the recording he took a recording on his mobile phone.  The recording was still clearly viewable.   Mr Dunne gave evidence that if he had no done so the recording does a self-delete after two weeks.

Mr Dunne confirmed that he did not witness the incident with the Complainant.  He confirmed that he did meet the Complainant and she explained that she was stopped.  He apologised and noted his surprise that it had happened.  Mr Dunne stated that it was important to note that the Complainant was initially stopped but at no stage was she refused entry.   Mr Dunne was asked about the Complainant’s allegation that he touched her when she returned to the store.  He clarified that he again apologised and tapped her arm to underline his apology. 

Mr Dunne was asked to respond to the Complainant’s assertion that he refused to provide her with the company details.  He clarified that he was the owner and it was not a franchise type store.  The policy of his retail partner is that he has to deal with customer complaints.  He explained that while there is a company name, he trades under the name of Centra Parnell Street.

Mr Dunne gave evidence in relation to the challenges of managing the store.  He operates in a volatile environment and his staff have to deal with aggressive and sometimes violent customers.  It can be a volatile place to work and his staff have to make decisions based on what they see at any particular time.  Mr Dunne stated that he is involved in a forum with the Gardaí in relation to the area.

Mr Dunne confirmed that he was satisfied with how his staff dealt with the incident involving the Complainant.  He would have preferred if it did not occur.  Mr Dunne stated that the CCTV shows that the incident lasted 15 seconds and occurred only because the Complainant’s Guide Dog was not instantly recognised.

Cross examination – Mr Noel Dunne:

Mr Dunne was cross examined by the Complainant.  He was asked how the no dogs’ policy is shared.  Mr Dunne explained that they have a software platform which deals with an introduction to Centra.  He confirmed that he personally tells every member of staff when they commence employment that working dogs are allowed into the store.   He confirmed that this is a verbal policy.   Mr Dunne was asked what information was given to staff to help them recognise the difference between a regular dog and a working dog.  Mr Dunne stated that staff were informed about the colour of a coat on a working dog and if a dog arrives with that jacket or a sign. Mr Dunne confirmed that the store does not have any videos of photographs of working dogs for use in staff training. 

Mr Dunne was asked if he kept training records for Mr Asharaf.  He confirmed that he did not have any records.  It was put to Mr Dunne that if there were no training records then there was no way for Mr Asharaf to recognise a working dog.  Mr Dunne stated that he is 19 years in business in that store and he relies on his team and he never had any previous issue in relation to a working dog.  Mr Dunne noted that he would describe his staff as diligent and the store has won Store of the Year on three occasions.  Mr Dunne stated that it was important for the Complainant to note that at no stage was she refused entry.  Her entry was delayed for a few seconds.

Mr Dunne was asked if there was any update on the policy since this incident given that he stated that he was aware of the frustration this caused to the Complainant.  Mr Dunne stated that all staff were made aware of the policy in relation to working dogs and the aim of this policy is to ensure that such dogs are recognised instantly.

Mr Dunne was asked to clarify his comment about the refusal of a dog.  He confirmed that non-working dogs are not allowed.  He encourages people to leave their dogs in an area outside the store.

Evidence – Mr Subhan Asharaf:

Mr Asharaf gave evidence on oath on behalf of the Respondent.  He confirmed that he began working in the store in July 2024.  His duties involve operating the till, cleaning and dealing with the coffee machine.  He works 2-3 days per week.

Mr Asharaf was asked about the incident involving the Complainant on 18/12/2024.  He gave evidence that he was packing coffee and he saw a lady with a dog and he asked her to stop.  He then realised it was a special dog and he told her to go ahead.

Mr Asharaf confirmed that during his training he was told that normal dogs are not allowed in the store but special dogs are. He confirmed that he would recognise a special dog if they were wearing a particular jacket.  He confirmed that he told the Complainant to come in immediately after he told her to stop as he saw the special dog.

Cross examination – Mr Subhan Asharaf:

Mr Asharaf was cross examined by the Complainant.  Mr Asharaf was asked if his view of the Complainant’s dog was impeded by the barrier at the entrance.  Mr Asharaf stated that he was near the coffee machine at the time.  He also confirmed that he observed the Complainant as he was carrying a bag of coffee to the machine.  Mr Asharaf confirmed that he could see the dog and he said that it was a big dog and he was scared.  He confirmed that he then recognised it as a special dog and told her to come in.  Mr Asharaf confirmed that at that time he was standing at the coffee machine area.

Closing submission:  Respondent:

In a closing submission on behalf of the Respondent Ms Conaty, BL, stated that in addition to the evidence adduced they also rely on their written submission.  Ms Conaty stated that the simple question is whether a shop with a policy of no dogs and where there is an exception for Guide Dogs complies with the requirement to provide reasonable accommodation under Section 4(1) of the Act.  The other question is when a mistake is made in relation to a Guide Dog and then it is immediately corrected if this is a breach of reasonable accommodation under Section 4 of the Act.

It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the evidence of Mr Dunne, the owner, is that the store has a no dogs policy since 2006 but that policy does not apply to working dogs.  That is how the policy is implemented and all staff are aware of this.  Mr Ashraf confirmed in evidence that he is aware of this policy.

Mr Ashraf’s evidence is that he did not initially recognise the dog as a working dog but when he did, he invited the Complainant in.  Another staff member also told the Complainant to come in.  Mr Dunne then arrived, apologised and invited her in.

It is submitted on behalf of the Respondent that a brief once off failure to identify a dog as a Guide Dog is not a breach of the Act.  A service provider such as the Respondent is entitled to correct a mistake.  Case law also allows for accidents to happen.  The Respondent relies on the case of Cahill v Minister for Education [2017] IESC 29, [2018] 2 I.R. 417, Laffoy J. held that where a complaint of discrimination under s.3 is fundamentally the same as a complaint that there was a failure to reasonably accommodation under s.4(1) which has been rejected, there cannot be a finding of discrimination under s.3:

“Accordingly, where, as here, s. 3(1) is invoked and only the disability ground is relied on by the Complainant, an interpretation of ss. 3(1), 4(1) and 5(10) as a whole, applying the principle of consistency, must lead to the conclusion that the finding that there was no discrimination under s.4(1) by reason of compliance with the obligation there imposed precludes the existence of discrimination under s. 3(1).”  (para. 177).

It is the Respondent’s position that the question of discrimination is an objective one.  Feelings are not relevant.  In the case of Maughan v The Glimmer Man Ltd DEC-S2001-020 (18 December 2021) the Complainant claimed that he was refused service at the Respondent’s premises because he had a Guide Dog.  The Equality Officer was satisfied that the Respondent had a no dogs policy and that the staff automatically refused to serve the Complainant because of it.  The Complainant produced a card from the Irish Guide Dogs for the Blind stating that Guide Dogs were allowed enter the premises and the Complainant was allowed enter and was served by staff.  In that case the Equality Officer held that if staff were unsure whether the Complainant’s dog was a Guide Dog, they were entitled to refuse service until their doubts were clarified by the Complainant.  The Equality Officer was satisfied that the Respondent succeeded in rebutting the inference of discrimination.

The statement by the employee that no dogs were allowed did not amount to less favourable treatment or a failure to reasonably accommodate the Complainant as it was immediately corrected when the dog was identified and exempted under the Respondent’s policy.

It was also submitted that the Complainant’s reliance on the case of Roche v Alabaster Associates Ltd t/a Madigans DEC-S202-086 and Moloney v Park House Hotel DEC-S2008-073 are different as in both of these cases the Complainant was refused service and there was no correction.  In two other cases cited by the Complainant, Lattimore v Dealz Ltd, ADJ-00047431 and Lattimore v Eddie Rockets Ireland Ltd, ADJ-00050580 there is a clear distinction with the within case in that there was an immediate correction by the Respondent.   In addition to this the Complainant was told by two other managers to come into the store.  It did not take until the manager arrived to correct things.

It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the requirement of s. 4 of the Act is did the Respondent do all that it could to accommodate the Complainant?  A momentary lapse or unintentional mistake that was immediately corrected cannot amount to a failure to reasonably accommodate or to less favourable treatment.  The Complainant was reasonably accommodated when she was invited into the store. The staff member immediately apologised and this was reinforced by the manager.  The Respondent submits that the Complainant’s complaint should be rejected.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

In accordance with Section 21 of the Equal Status Act 2000 (as amended) an individual may seek redress in respect of any prohibited conduct that has been directed against him or her by referring a case to the Workplace Relations Commission. Prior to making such a referral there is a requirement that the Complainant shall have already notified the Respondent in writing (Form ES. 1) of the nature of the allegation and the intention to seek such redress if not satisfied with the Respondent’s response. This notice in writing shall be brought within two months of the alleged prohibited conduct or the last instance of same.

A Respondent may choose to reply with an explanation for the treatment by returning the attached ES. 2 Form.

It is not disputed that the Complainant complied with the formalities of submitting an ES 1 form.  It is also not disputed that the Respondent is providing a service within the meaning of s. 5 of the Act

I am satisfied that the Complainant has complied with the relevant notification requirements as provided for in Section 21(2)(a) of the Acts.  Accordingly, I find that I have jurisdiction to investigate the complaint of discrimination in this case.

The issue for decision by me is, whether or not the Respondent discriminated against the Complainant on the disability ground as provided for in sections 3(2) of the Equal Status Acts, 2000-2015 and also a failure to provide reasonable accommodation.  In reaching my decision, I have taken into account all of the submissions, oral and written, made to me in the course of my investigation as well as the evidence at the hybrid hearing.

The Relevant Law

The Equal Status Act 2000-2015 (the “ESA”) as amended prohibits discrimination in the provision of goods and services, accommodation and education.  It covers the ten protected grounds of gender, marital status, family status, age, disability, sexual orientation, race, religion, membership of the Traveller Community and housing assistance (only as regards the provision of accommodation). 

I reference the definition of discrimination provided in section 3 of the ESA as follows:

Discrimination (general).

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,

Or

(c) where an apparently neutral provision would put a person] referred to in any paragraph of section 3(2) at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons, unless the provision is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary”.

The Complainant has submitted her complaint on ground of disability and a failure to provide reasonable accommodation.  It is not in dispute that the Complainant has a disability within the meaning of Section 2 of the ESA.    I am satisfied the Respondent is providing a service within the meaning of s. 5 of the Act.

Section 5 of the ESA provides clear direction against prohibited conduct as follows:

“5. – (1) 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.”

The Burden of Proof

Section 38A of the ESA sets out the burden of proof as follows:

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”.

Section 38A of the Acts sets out the burden of proof which applies to a claim of discrimination under the Equal Status Acts and requires the Complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts from which the discrimination alleged may be inferred.  It is only where such a prima facie case of discrimination has been established that the onus shifts to the Respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination raised.  

This requires the Complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to her.   If the Complainant succeeds in doing so, then, and only then, is it for the Respondent to prove the contrary.  The Labour Court has held consistently that the facts from which the occurrence of discrimination may be inferred must be of “sufficient significance” before a prima facie case is established and the burden of proof shifts to the Respondent. 

In deciding on this complaint, therefore, I must first consider whether the existence of a prima facie case has been established by the Complainant. As outlined above,  it is only where such a prima facie case has been established that the burden of proving there was no infringement of the principle of equal treatment passes to the Respondent.

The Labour Court, in Mitchell v Southern Health Board [2001] ELR 201 emphasised that, in the first instance, the claimant “must prove, on the balance of probabilities, the primary facts on which they rely in seeking to raise a presumption of unlawful discrimination”. 

The Court continued; “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 was no infringement of the principle of equal treatment”.

In deciding whether the Complainant has established a prima facie case the focus is on the Complainant’s own evidence. In her direct evidence she describes that she was asked by a member of staff not to enter the store.  The evidence of the staff member is that he did not immediately recognise the Complainant’s dog as a Guide Dog but when he did so he immediately apologised and invited the Complainant into the store.  This approach was further supported by another staff member and by the owner/manager who also met the Complainant.

The Respondent acknowledges that an employee made an error in not immediately identifying the Complainant’s animal as an assistance dog. Upon realising the mistake within seconds, the employee apologised and rectified the matter. This was subsequently confirmed by another employee, and when the store owner/manager arrived, he too apologised and confirmed that the store welcomes assistance dogs.

The central issue for determination is whether this incident amounted to discrimination and a failure to provide reasonable accommodation for the Complainant. It is accepted that the Complainant has a disability and requires the assistance of a Guide Dog.

It is also recognised that mistakes may occur in practice. In this instance, the employee did not at first recognise the Guide Dog, but promptly corrected the position and offered an apology. To interpret this brief incident over a 15 second time frame as constituting discrimination requires a degree of inference which I do not consider to be supported by the evidence.

The Complainant has advanced this as a complaint of discrimination based on a failure to provide reasonable accommodation. However, I find that the Complainant has not adduced sufficient evidence to establish that such discrimination occurred in this case.  Based on the evidence I find that the Complainant has not established a prima facie case upon which discrimination can be inferred based on the disability ground. 

Accordingly, the complaint is not upheld and I find that the Respondent did not engage in prohibited conduct.

In accordance with Section 25(4) of the Equal Status Acts, I have concluded the investigation and I find that the Complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the ground of disability in terms of sections 3(1), 3(2)(g) and 4(1) of the Equal Status Acts.  Accordingly, this complaint fails and I find that the Respondent did not engage in prohibited conduct.

Discrimination.  Disability.  Reasonable Accommodation.