Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mervyn  Walker

Donegal Golf Club

Representatives

Damien Crawford B.L. instructed by Dunlevy & Barry 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-00066141-001

20/09/2024

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant undertook to give his evidence under oath, while another witness undertook to give her evidence under affirmation.  A witness for the respondent, the Honorary Secretary undertook to give his evidence under affirmation.  Cross examination was facilitated.

At the completion of the hearing, I took the time to review all the oral evidence together with the written submissions made by the parties. The respective positions of the parties are noted, and a broad outline of the evidence and cross examination is provided.  I am not required to provide a line-by-line assessment of the evidence and submissions that I have rejected or deemed superfluous to the main findings.  I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held that a

“…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one.  Only broad reasons need be given…”.

The complainant submitted that the respondent discriminated against him by failing in its requirement under the Equal Status Acts to consider and make reasonable accommodation for him due to a disability, thus making it impossible to gain access to the golf course on an equal basis with others who can walk the course and do not require a buggy to enable them to play. He submitted that he has a chronic heart condition which worsens with exercise and is unable to walk the course. The complainant submitted that he has not been able to walk a golf course in more than 4 years and as such needs to use a buggy to play golf.

The complainant submitted that since late 2019 / early 2020 the respondent has made ‘reasonable accommodation’ in giving permission for use of a buggy all year round. This was granted after he wrote to the administrator in December 2019 highlighting his medical condition and providing a letter from a cardiologist which fully supported my need to use a buggy.  

The complainant submitted that as a result of this decision he was able to use his buggy when the larger 2-seater club buggies were not allowed on the course, except when closed for snow or frost. This has remained in place until recently.

The complainant submitted that in a recent decision, the management committee decided on or around 21 March 2024 that in future, if the club buggies are not allowed on the course in adverse weather conditions, that this would apply to all golf buggies: in effect a blanket ban. This directly affects the use of a buggy and as such his ability to play golf at certain times of the year. He submitted that he cannot confirm the exact date of the meeting as requests for the minutes of the meeting have been denied. His appeal of 21 April against this decision was rejected and he was informed of this decision on 24 June 2024. This recent decision withdrew the reasonable accommodation that has been in place for more than 4 years.

Oral Evidence:

The complainant stated that he has never sought unrestricted access and also never sought to restrict able bodied golfers access to the course on days of inclement weather. He noted that there was a responsibility on a buggy user of safe usage. He noted that the only person targeted was him. The complainant noted that the respondent’s cooperation throughout their process of review leaves a lot to be desired. During the period that he used his buggy on the course there were no reports of buggy damage to the course. The complainant wondered what had changed in order to add his buggy to the ban.

The complainant stated that on inclement days there was a ban on buggies and in April 2024 his buggy was added to that ban. The complainant noted that he was not asking the club to add paths, he could not stay on the left today, on the right tomorrow, but he noted that they had not considered alternatives. The complainant noted that there are 80 plus members who are allowed to use the buggies.

Under cross examination the complainant stated that the club owned 19 buggies, but he has never seen 19 buggies on the course. He stated that the restriction was on anyone who owns a private buggy from April 2024 and that they were all stopped at the same time.

The complainant accepted that closing the course to buggies on occasion is appropriate but it needs to be fairly implemented. The complainant was asked whether he turned up looking for access to the club and was refused and indicated that he was not refused access. He noted that on one day there was a frost delay, the course opened late, and he was not allowed out on that day.

The witness stated that his exemption from the buggy access rule was approved by the committee, but it changed in April 2024. He stated that reasonable accommodation is the use of the buggy on the course.  He accepted that it is up to a golf course to manage the facilities but noted that a blanket ban does not deal with equality issues. He stated that he was seeking to be put on an equal footing with those who can walk the course, noting that individual circumstances need to be taken into account.

The complainant stated that when an amber warning is in place buggies are forbidden and he accepted that the club does have responsibility to others but noted that it also has a responsibility to buggy users.

The second witness for the complainant worked on the administration side of the respondent’s business.  She confirmed that the complainant was the one and only member who could use the single seated buggy on the course. He could use his buggy when double buggies were restricted from the course. The club had bought single seater buggies but they proved unsafe going out on the course during inclement weather. A blanket ban on buggies during inclement weather was brought in.

Under cross examination the witness confirmed that the ban applied to all buggies. She confirmed that the club bought some buggies to encourage disabled members to use the course however the three wheeled versions did not prove to be safe. She stated that the club had 12 buggies during the summertime in 2024 and confirmed that buggies did do damage to the course and they had received a recommendation from an agronomist.

Under redirection the witness confirmed that there were no safety issues reported between 2019 and 2024 but confirmed that she was not involved in the management of the course and she would not necessarily have been aware of all of the issues involved or raised.

The respondent is an 18-hole links golf club located at Murvagh, County Donegal, with over 700 members. The respondent submitted that the Club runs one of the few true links courses in northwest Ireland, noted for its natural sand dunes, rolling terrain, and exposure to Atlantic weather.

The respondent accepted without reservation that the complainant has a disability as defined by Section 3(2) of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2015 and requires the use of a golf buggy to access the golf course.

The respondent submitted that although the complainant alleges that it discriminated against him on the grounds of disability by failing to provide reasonable accommodation, specifically by implementing a policy in March or April 2024 that restricts the use of golf buggies during adverse weather conditions, it wholly denies this allegation. The complainant has not been denied access to the golf course. He continues to be allowed to use his personal single-seater golf buggy and will remain so permitted as long as he is a member.

The respondent submitted that it has consistently aimed to balance its obligations under the Equal Status Acts with its duty to maintain a safe and playable golf course for all members, both able-bodied and disabled, and to address significant health and safety concerns particular to the complainant's circumstances. The respondent submitted that the complaint is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of its policy and presents an entirely unrealistic demand that he be allowed unrestricted access to the golf course in all weather conditions without regard for course damage, safety concerns, or the interests of the Club's other 700+ members.

The respondent submitted that the golf course is a links course, and this differs fundamentally from a parkland course. It is characterised by natural sand dunes and significant undulations, and it sits in an exposed coastal location facing Donegal Bay and the Atlantic Ocean.  This means that there is natural drainage through sandy soil and that it is exposed to severe weather exposure with high winds and heavy rainfall.  The result of this is that the terrain that is inherently less stable than parkland courses.  Additionally, the course borders a Special Area of Conservation (Donegal Bay), which significantly limits the Club's capacity to carry out construction works such as buggy paths without contravening environmental legislation.

The respondent submitted that due to its coastal location in northwest Ireland, the course experiences weather conditions that are significantly more severe and lasting than those in other parts of the country. Increased rainfall in recent years has led to more frequent periods of poor ground conditions.  The distinctive topography of a links course introduces inherent safety hazards for buggy users. The rolling terrain, slopes, and sand dune features pose risks not found on flat parkland courses, especially in bad weather when the ground becomes wet or slippery.

The respondent acknowledged that the complainant purchased a personal single-seater three-wheeled golf buggy around 2019 and began using it on the course. The complainant states that he was "permitted" to use this buggy year-round from late 2019 until April 2024 as a "reasonable accommodation" for his disability.  

The respondent submitted that the complainant was accommodated for approximately four years (late 2019 to March 2024). He suggested this establishes that year-round accommodation is reasonable. The Respondent submitted that previous accommodation is relevant but not determinative. In A Company v A Worker [DEC-E2011-083], the Tribunal accepted that changed circumstances may justify changes to previously provided accommodation.  In relation to the Golf Club circumstances changed significantly between 2019 and 2024 in that there was a sharp rise in the number of members needing buggies (from a few to over 80); this gave rise to a greater cumulative impact on course conditions; altered weather patterns have arisen with more frequent adverse conditions; personal injury litigation had taken place highlighting safety concerns; and there was an Increased awareness through the single-seater buggy trial of specific safety issues on the links terrain.

The current Honorary Secretary did not hold that position in 2019 and is unable to confirm the specific terms of any arrangement made at that time. However, it is acknowledged that the complainant did use his personal buggy during this period.

The respondent submitted that at the beginning of 2024, the Green's Committee undertook a comprehensive review of the Club's buggy policy. This review was prompted by several factors:

·       Increasing Age Profile of Club members:  By 2024, in excess of 80 members (over 10% of the total membership) had provided medical certification authorising their use of golf buggies. Given the age profile of the membership, this number was anticipated to increase significantly.

·       Course Protection: The Club's primary obligation is to maintain a playable golf course for all members throughout the year. Increased buggy usage, if not properly managed, risks course damage that would reduce the number of playable days for all members - both able-bodied and disabled.

·       Existing Personal Injury Litigation: The Club is currently a named defendant in High Court personal injury proceedings arising from the use of a golf buggy on the course. This litigation highlighted the need to review health and safety aspects of buggy usage.

·       Failed Single-Seater Purchase: In an attempt to accommodate the increasing number of disabled members, the Club purchased several single-seater golf buggies similar to the one owned by the Complainant. These proved unsuitable and unsafe, particularly on the links terrain, with an increased risk of overturning. The Club disposed of these buggies shortly after purchase.

·       Changed Weather Patterns: Increased rainfall in the northwest of Ireland had resulted in more frequent periods of adverse ground conditions requiring temporary restrictions.

The review process included consideration of research by a (named) research institute. The research report in 2020 examined the impact of different buggy types on turf under varying conditions. The essential findings were:

·       Under normal ground and hot weather conditions, buggy usage does not significantly damage turf.

·       Under soft ground conditions, all buggy types result in more severe turf marking.

·       Under marginal conditions (at the point of considering restrictions) and under intensive wear, greater differences in surface damage are observed by buggy type.

·       Single-seater buggies, similar to the complainant's, resulted in slightly greater turf damage than conventional four-wheel buggies, particularly during severe manoeuvres.

·       Damage is caused by the narrower tyre type used on single-seater buggies

The Green's Committee considered this evidence and recommended to the Club Committee that a traffic light system be adopted for buggy usage: Green: the entire golf course playable by all golfers, both able-bodied and those requiring buggies. Amber: the course is open for play, however the use of golf buggies is restricted due to ground conditions. Red: the entire golf course closed to all play.

The respondent submitted that these proposals were adopted by the Club Committee in April 2024. On 21 April 2024, the complainant contacted the Honorary Secretary by email stating that he understood "the decision was taken that if the course was closed to buggies, then all buggies would be off the course."  The complainant requested a review of the decision and outlined that his requirement for buggy use arose from a medical condition. He noted therein that he had been allowed to use his single-seater buggy for over 4 years. He also noted that the Club had recently purchased single-seater buggies, (these were subsequently sold). He outlined his belief that single-seater buggies cause less damage than two-seater buggies. Correspondence ensued between the Club Secretary and the complainant. The complainant sought copies of Committee meeting minutes, which were declined on data protection grounds. The complainant also sought clarification as to whether the Committee had considered disability legislation.

By email dated 8th July 2024, the Club Secretary responded, confirming: “..the only matter taken into consideration was the damage being done to the course by buggies when there are abnormal course conditions at Donegal Golf Club." and noting that "...this ban on all buggies is only when we have abnormal course conditions, thankfully this is a rare occurrence compared to courses around us."

The Respondent accepted that this correspondence could have been clearer and more detailed However, the essential point being communicated was that restrictions would apply only during abnormal conditions, which are, and were stated to be, rare occurrences.

The respondent submitted that it is essential to understand what the actual policy is, rather than what the complainant perceives it to be:  He has never been denied permission to use his personal golf buggy. The complainant remains authorised to use his personal single-seater buggy and will continue to be allowed to do so. The respondent operates a traffic light system whereby restrictions apply only during exceptional circumstances of adverse weather/ground conditions During Amber status; buggy usage is limited but not forbidden - the specific circumstances of individual members are considered. During Red status, the entire course is closed to all members, both able-bodied and disabled. The complainant's individual circumstances, including his medical condition and personal issues, are considered in any restriction decisions.

The respondent submitted that over 80 other members with medical certification for buggy use have raised no complaints about the Club's policy adopted in 2024. The restrictions imposed are both uncommon and reasonable. In 2024, the course was entirely closed (Red status) on only 18 days. These closures affected all members equally. The times when Amber restrictions were in place were similarly rare. Notably, although the policy has been in place since April 2024, the complainant has never attempted to use his buggy during a time when he believed restrictions were in effect. He has never appeared at the Club, tried to use his buggy, and been turned away. His complaint relies solely on his interpretation of written communications and his assumption that he would be barred.

The respondent noted subsequent developments in that it has obtained an expert report from a named turf expert, dated 25th September 2025, which confirms the significant challenges faced in maintaining the greens on the golf course and the substantial works required. This report presents expert evidence of the course management challenges associated with the unique climatic conditions at its location.  

The respondent noted that the complainant submitted an additional document to the WRC in October 2025, referencing the Buggy Guidelines from a national sporting body. The respondent noted that these Guidelines were not available when the Club's policy review was conducted in early 2024. The Guidelines are general guidance applicable to both parkland and links courses. The unique features of a links course create additional safety considerations not fully addressed in general guidance. It was also noted that the respondent's policy is substantially consistent with the approach of the national sporting body.

Witness evidence:

The witness for the respondent confirmed that as honorary secretary he was acting as the general manager since 2024. He stated that there are currently more than 800 members. He confirmed that there are 19 buggies available for member usage, for members who have a certified disability there is a nominal charge of €10 per round for use of the buggy rather than the €50 for people without medical certification. He stated that there were 2500 buggy rounds played in 2025, 52% were booked by players with a disability, the remainder for people without certification.

The witness for the respondent outlined that there was a review in the use of buggies in 2024. He noted that the complainant is seeking more favourable treatment compared to other buggy users who do not have a disability. He stated that the complainant has been permitted to continue using his buggy noting that when the course is not playable it is closed for everybody.

The witness noted that the respondent has been the subject of litigation arising from the use of a buggy, stating that it was not the complainant who was involved in that case, but that there was damage caused by the buggy.  This had led to consequences for the club.

The witness noted that the ban on the use of buggies on certain days is something that affects the viability of the club, both in terms of the terrain and in terms of the insurance coverage that the club would be required to purchase. He noted that during amber warning days buggy usage is limited but not forbidden.

He stated that following litigation, climate change relating to higher precipitation rates, and changes in tidal levels the club decided to look at buggy use which had increased over the past number of years. They brought in a traffic light system to cover the use of buggies. The factors that they considered in relation to the use of buggies were the damage to the golf course caused by buggy use, current issues with renovating the course and the fact that the course is a links course.

He stated that the respondent didn't follow other golf courses who chose to close their courses to buggies for up to six months per year. However, they took a safety perspective on the overall use of buggies primarily relating to ground conditions. He stated that the restrictions also applied to four other private buggy users noting that all others have medical certifications. He confirmed that the buggy users comprised one 3-wheeler buggy, one 4-wheeler buggy and three double buggies. He confirmed that it was a universal ban that was brought in and noted that he was not qualified to differentiate between various disabilities.

He stated that the amber and red system allowed them to minimise the wear and tear in near normal weather conditions. He confirmed that a decision on course condition is now sent out earlier but still issues on a daily basis.

The witness stated that the complainant is free to come and go on the course and noted that he was not aware that the complainant had been asked to leave or had been refused access to the course. He confirmed he'd received no complaints about the complainant's use of a buggy. He noted that decisions were based on overall use not on an individual's use and that the ban is for all individuals and is not selective. He stated that when the buggy ban is in place some users chose to walk the course but to play less holes on a given day.

The witness stated that it is not feasible to build buggy paths on of course that is both a links course and is located in an area of special conservation/protection. He noted that the nature of the damage caused by buggies to the playing surface is both instant and long-term damage. He noted that visitors cover 67% of the cost of maintaining the course and accordingly it's necessary to maintain the course at a high level. He noted that costs have increased hugely over the recent past.

In general terms the witness stated that in relation to the club things change, conditions change and the environment has changed and noted that when they revisited the buggy policy they took all buggies into consideration. The witness stated that the complainant can play golf when ground conditions permit and noted that the traffic light system is far more lenient than others and that it is managed on a daily basis.

Under cross examination the witness confirmed that the decision to exclude buggies on various days was taken on a health and safety basis (arising from the litigation) as well as consideration of the course, and noted that all buggy use was taken collectively. He stated that the impact was on all members. He stated that if the complainant was not allowed out no buggies were allowed out. He stated that other alternatives were considered but that the only thing that mattered was the state of the course.

The witness confirmed that the course was not closed on any day during the six months prior to the lodgement of the complaint, he confirmed that the revised policy was not aimed at the complainant personally and noted that he had never received a request to reinstate the previous system.

The witness noted that he understood that when considering reasonable accommodation that course should be normal or proportionate, he confirmed that he did not get costings reports as to how much buggy damage would cost as they were not in a position to do so.

The Equal Status Act, 2000 defines discrimination as follows in Section 3(1) and 4(1) :

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.

…

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.

The respondent submitted that what the complainant was seeking did not amount to discrimination in that he was seeking more favourable treatment rather than complaining of less favourable treatment.

The complainant sought to compare himself to persons who were able to walk the course.  The respondent submitted that the correct comparison was between buggy users who had a disability and those who did not.  The respondent indicated that there were approximately 2500 rounds of golf played in the year preceding the hearing where golfers availed of the use of a buggy.  Of this total, 52% had a disability or medical certificate relating to their need to use a golf buggy.  The remaining 48% produced no certification relating to their need to use a buggy.  It was pointed out that the certification ensured that golfers with a disability could avail of a rental buggy for the reduced price of €10 per round, those without had to pay a fee of €50 for the buggy rental.  The difference between the two cohorts was that 52% had a certified disability, 48% did not.

I note that the respondent did not bar buggy use altogether, merely restricting the use of buggies depending on the weather conditions prevailing on a day or at a particular time of the day.  The respondent submitted that this took regard of the daily weather and the need to maintain club assets in good condition.

I note that the review undertaken by the respondent identified a level of damage associated with buggy use during inclement weather.  It took place in circumstances where the terrain of the course is inherently less stable than parkland courses, that there was a limit in the Club’s capacity to undertake construction works such a construction of buggy paths.  It was noted that the rolling terrain, slopes and sand dune features pose risks not found on flat parkland courses, especially in bad weather when the ground becomes wet or slippery. 

Arising from the foregoing I am satisfied that the appropriate comparator is the buggy-using group without a disability.  All buggy users were treated the same: the complainant submitted that this treatment was a blanket ban while the respondent indicated that the was some room to consider usage on a case-by-case basis although no evidence of this have been the case was presented by either side.  On balance, I prefer the complainant version of events, which was supported by the evidence of an additional witness employed on the administration side of the respondent, that there was a blanket ban on the use of buggies on days when there was an amber notice in relation to play on the course.

However, this ban, whether limited or a blanket ban was never tested by the complainant.  He confirmed that he did not try to access the course on a day where an amber warning was in place.  He confirmed that the only time he was refused access was due to frost and appears to have been a red warning where no players were allowed to play for a time earlier in the day.

On the basis of a blanket ban being in place, I am satisfied that what the complainant was looking for is more favourable treatment than other buggy users, those who had no disability or otherwise.  Having regard to Section 3(1) of the Act, I find that the complainant has not established that he was treated less favourably than another is, has been, or would be in a comparable situation.

Section 38A(1) of the Act deals with the burden of proof that rests on a complainant.  It states as follows:

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.

Arising from all of the foregoing, I am not satisfied that the complainant has established facts from which it may be presumed that prohibited conduct has occurred in relation to him.  Accordingly, I find that the complainant was not discriminated against in accordance with the Act.

Having regard to all the written and oral information presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complainant was not discriminated against.

Equal Status Act – disability ground – comparators - seeking more favourable treatment – burden of proof – no discrimination found