Complainant

Respondent

Parties

M Paul  Cronin

Aarval Ltd. Mc Donald's Restaurants

Representatives

Robert Laffan. Harrisson O’Dowd, Solicitors

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00073680-001

22/07/2025

On January 24th, 2025, the complainant was in the respondent’s restaurant and ordered a cup of coffee. Nearby, another customer was talking on her telephone. He asked her to lower her voice. She did so and proceeded with her call.

He took the coffee from the restaurant counter and went to sit as further away from her as possible and then made a phone call himself.  As he did so she turned around and asked him to lower his voice even though he says he was not loud.

He remained seated and on the phone for a considerable amount of time after. (He says for about half an hour although the respondent submitted this was contradicted by CCTV footage showing it was around seventeen minutes).

Ashewasleaving,he,rathernaivelyinhindsight,thought itbestforhimtoexplaintothesecurityguardwhathad happened.

The security guard treated him badly and referred to him as a "queer" during this interaction. He had asked to speak to a manager, but he refused. The security guard intimated to him he was being recorded by his body camera and when he asked why he was being recorded he refused to say and then when he said he would record on his phone matters escalated.

He subsequently received a phone call from a manager with the respondent, and an allegation was made that he threatened the woman customer, and it was said the security guard was afraid of him although he was a far bigger man.

The complainant pointed out to Mr Byrne that had this occurred the customer would have immediately complained to the security guard, but she did not do so and in fact he was permitted to remain on in the premises for a considerable period of time and this flies in the face of what the security guard says.

He requested the CCTV including body camera footage but was informed that the body camera was turned off and not all of the cameras were switched on. he was again very surprised that not all of the cameras were switched on.

The incident caused him huge distress and anxiety, and he had hoped a small goodwill gesture would be forthcoming but due to the intransigent response from the respondent he feel he have no alternative but to lodge a complaint with the WRC. He believed that due to the words uttered by the Security Guard that he was treated unfairly due to his sexual orientation.

The complainant gave oral evidence on affirmation and confirmed the sequence of events set out above.

He said that he was a regular customer in the restaurant and visited it weekly or every two weeks. He felt that the security guard ought to have known him.

He submitted that the guard said to him ‘I am not talking to you, you are a queer.’

In response to questions in cross examination the complainant said that it was reasonable to assume that the security man knew that he was gay ‘as it is easy for people to do so,’ as he ‘came across as gay.’

He initially identified the words allegedly used by the security guard as the breach of the Act but amended this in later comments at the hearing to include the altercation with the security guard as he was leaving.

Ho confirmed that he sought a settlement of €500.00 to resolve the matter which he thought was reasonable. This later rose to €1000.00.

The Security Guard became aware of an exchange between the complainant and a female customer.

Initially the female customer was on her phone, and apparently the complainant asked this customer to lower her voice or words to that effect. A short time later he was on his phone, and the female customer asked him to lower his voice while speaking on the telephone. The Security guard became involved and there was a brief interchange with the member of Security Staff and who asked both individuals to stop.

Approximately thirty minutes later the complainant approached the Security Guard asking why he intervened in favour of the other individual and the Security Guard advised the complainant that he had asked them both to stop.

The complainant became argumentative, and he was asked to leave and for a short period of time refused to follow this direction. The complainant spoke to the Security Guard disrespectfully and at no time did he use the words as alleged.

There is absolutely no substance to the allegation that the Security Guard discriminated against the complainant.

The complainant's sexual orientation was not known at the time of the interaction. Any suggestion or allegation that words were used by any of the members of staff against him which is said to have amounted to discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is denied.

Evidence of Alfred Edwards on affirmation. (Mr Edwards is the security guard involved in the incident.)

He said that he heard raised voices between the complainant and the woman customer and approached them both to ask them to calm down. He then returned to his station.

He confirmed that he did not know the complainant or that he was homosexual and was not familiar with the word ‘queer’ as a descriptor of a homosexual person. He denied using the word to the complainant.

He said that the complainant approached him some twenty minutes later approximately as he was leaving. He placed his belongings on a seat and approached the witness. He said the complainant was very angry and accused him of taking the side of the woman customer in the earlier incident.

The facts are set out in the submissions and evidence above.

While there was a degree of argument about some of the detail, especially regarding the altercation when the complainant was leaving, little if any of it went to the proof of whether a breach of the Equal Status Act had occurred.

The starting point is to discern a prima facie case of a breach of the Act. It is hard to do so on these facts.

The first (and initially only) allegation was that the respondent‘s security guard had referred to the complainant as a ‘queer,’ meaning a homosexual.

Mr Edwards not only denied that he used the word but said that he was not even familiar with its use in this context. While the complainant questioned this Mr. Edwards said that he had only lived in Ireland for three years having come from Germany and had not heard the word used with that meaning before.

The best the complainant could offer was the rather feeble suggestion that the security guard should have known that he, the complainant, was gay as, in his submission, he ‘came across as gay,’ whatever exactly that was supposed to mean, or to which of the complainant’s personal characteristics this was supposed to relate. He did not say.

The evidence of the security guard, Mr Edwards was credible and there was absolutely no basis established that might allow an imputation to him of knowledge of the complainant’s sexuality beyond the complainant’s fanciful speculation. There was no corroborating evidence apart from the complainant‘s assertion that the words were used.

I find that they were not.

Indeed, some further support is lent to this view by the fact that in making his complaint to the respondent about the incident two days later the complainant made no reference to the alleged discriminatory aspect of the incident, or to his homosexuality as having been a factor.

The complainant’s belated decision in the course of the hearing to introduce the altercation as he was leaving is of even less assistance to him in making out a case.

There was an altercation, but it was completely initiated by the complainant for reasons best known to himself on the basis that in his earlier intervention Mr Edwards had sided with the other customer. The complainant accepts that in hindsight this was ‘naïve.’

In fact, the complainant did not offer any evidence of Mr Edwards’ actions to support this alleged bias, and Mr Edwards denied it.

The evidence does suggest that he approached Mr Edwards somewhat confrontationally, having placed his belongings on a nearby seat the better to do so. So, it was not simply to be a passing comment as he left.

And this was all because he felt that Mr Edwards had allegedly sided with the other customer at least some twenty minutes earlier in relation to the very trivial issue of the loudness of a person making a phone call, ; a veritable storm in a tea cup, or on this occasion, a coffee cup.

The complainant demonstrated very poor judgment in doing so and should have left well enough alone.

I find with relative ease that the complainant has not made out a prima facie case in respect of any aspect of the matter and that the complaint is entirely misconceived.

For the reasons set out above Complaint CA-00073680-001 is not upheld.

Equal Status, Homosexuality