A Prospective Customer v. A Hotel/Wedding Venue ADJ-00026881

A prospective customer contacted a hotel regarding her wedding reception. The hotel refused to engage or provide her with information after learning her surname, which identified her as a Traveller. The Workplace Relations Commission found a case of discrimination had been made, and the prospective customer was awarded €15,000.

Ann Stokes v. Atlantic Troy Limited Charleville Park Hotel & Leisure Club ADJ-00026051

The Complainants, a group of three Travellers booked hotel accommodation online but were refused the accommodation upon arrival at the hotel, on the grounds that a credit card was required to complete the booking. This was found to be discriminatory by the Workplace Relations Commission because the financial requirements involved in having a credit card put members of the Traveller Community at a significant disadvantage in comparison to others. The hotel’s policy was not objectively justified.

Annalise Power v. Atlantic Troy Limited Charleville Park Hotel & Leisure Club ADJ-00026060

The Complainants, a group of three Travellers booked hotel accommodation online but were refused the accommodation upon arrival at the hotel, on the grounds that a credit card was required to complete the booking. This was found to be discriminatory by the Workplace Relations Commission because the financial requirements involved in having a credit card put members of the Traveller Community at a significant disadvantage in comparison to others. The hotel’s policy was not objectively justified.

Bridget Power v. Atlantic Troy Limited Charleville Park Hotel ADJ-00026062

A group of three Travellers arrived at a hotel, having booked online but were refused accommodation on arriving, on the ground that a credit card was required. This was found by the Workplace Relations Commission to be discriminatory because the financial requirements involved in having a credit card put members of the Traveller Community at a significant disadvantage in comparison to others. The hotel’s policy was not objectively justified.  

Annie McDonagh v. Fiddler's Creek Bar, Sligo DEC-S2002-119

The complainant was refused service in the respondents’ premises, on the basis of her membership of the Traveller Community. The Workplace Relations Commission found this to amount to discrimination contrary to Section 3(1) and 3(2)(i) of the Equal Status Act 2000.

Caroline Maughan v. Poundland Limited Dealz ADJ-0002-6693

The Complainant was successful in her case before the Workplace Relations Commission regarding being refused goods and services on a discriminatory basis, based on her membership of the Traveller Community. 

Catherine Dooley, Bridget Dooley & Margaret Dooley v. The Cutting Crew Hairdressing Salon, Cork DEC-S2002-023/024/025

Catherine Dooley, Bridget Dooley, and Margaret Dooley claimed before the Equality Tribunal that they were refused service at Cutting Crew Hairdressing Salon on the basis of their status as members of the Traveller Community. The salon argued that they were denied service due to previous unacceptable behaviour at the premises. The Equality Officer concluded that the Dooleys failed to establish a prima facie case under the Equal Status Act 2000 and found in favour of the salon.

Buckland v. The United Kingdom (Application no. 40060/08) 

Ms Buckland argued that the fact that she was not able to challenge the making of a possession order amounted to a violation of her rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights held that there was no mechanism for her to challenge the making of the possession order, this was not a proportionate interference with her right to respect for her home and thus was a violation of her rights under Article 8. 

Buckley v. The United Kingdom (Application Number 20348/92)

The Applicant, Ms. Buckley, argued that a refusal of planning permission to station her caravans on rural land she owned was contrary to her right to private and family life under Article 8 ECHR. The European Court of Human Rights found that there was no breach of Mrs Buckley’s rights. The Local Authority had justified reasons to interfere with the Applicant’s Article 8 rights and the UK had given adequate consideration of her special minority rights against the general interest of the community. Buckley was the first case ever initiated by a Gypsy applicant referred to the Court by the then European Commission of Human Rights.

Chapman v. the United Kingdom (Application Number 27238/95)

The applicant, Ms. Chapman, had purchased a piece of land and intended to live on it in a caravan. She was refused planning permission and challenged this under Article 8 and 14 ECHR. The European Court of Human Rights found that there was no violation of those Articles applying the precedent set by Buckley v The United Kingdom (Application Number 20348/92) .

Winterstein & Ors v. France (Application Number 27013/07) 

This case concerned the eviction of ‘gens de voyage’ or Travellers from a long-term halting site. This was justified by the French local authority as a breach of their land-use plan and owing to a need to protect the landscape of the site upon which the Traveller applicants were residing. The European Court of Human Rights found a disproportionate violation of the right to respect for private and family life and home under Article 8 of the ECHR, due to the lack of consideration of the proportionality of the eviction’s effect. Winterstein is considered a key case for the development of the right to culturally appropriate accommodation under Article 8 ECHR.

Edward O’ Reilly v The Dragon Inn Pub, Tallaght DEC-S2002-017

 The complainant was refused service in a pub and argues it was based on their membership of the Traveller Community.  He submitted a claim to the Equality Tribunal under the Equal Status Act 2000. The respondents argue it was based on his already having enough to drink invoking s.15 of the Act. Equality Officer found that the complainant was not discriminated against on the Traveller community ground contrary to Section 3(1) and 3(2)(i) of the Equal Status Act and in terms of Section 15(1) of that Act which permits service providers to refuse service where to not do so may lead to disorder. 

Eileen Delaney, Hannah Carthy, Cathleen O’ Reilly and Margaret O’ Reilly v. Biddy Early’s, Kilkenny DEC-S2002-041-044

This dispute concerns a complaint by four complainants that they were discriminated against on the ground of being Irish Travellers contrary to the Equal Status Act, 2000 in being denied admission to the respondent premises.  The Equality Officer found that the complainants had established a clear case of discrimination on the ground of being Travellers within the Equal Status Act, 2000.

Ethel Brooks v. The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána ADJ-00012145

This is a discrimination case taken by Romani Academic Professor Ethel Brooks against An Garda Siochana due to an interaction occurring at Dublin Airport. She brought the complaint to the WRC where it was dismissed for technical reasons but reached a settlement agreement in the Circuit Court. The case highlights the high burden existing within the current equality system regarding how and where to take a non-discrimination case within the restrictive criteria and rules before the WRC. Professor Brooks was supported by the European Roma Rights Centre and the Free Legal Advice Centre in taking her claim to the Circuit Court. 

James McCarthy v. Cork City Council ADJ-00018849 

The Complainant submitted a complaint against the Council to the WRC arguing discrimination on grounds of gender and membership of the Traveller Community in accessing housing under the Equal Status Acts 2000-2018. The adjudicator found discrimination had occurred based on McCarthy’s membership of the Traveller Community, but not on gender grounds.

Marina McCarthy v. Gurranabrahar Credit Union ADJ-00025710

Ms McCarthy submitted a claim of discrimination against a Credit Union under the Equal Status Act 2000, due to their withholding of a letter of loan refusal, and hostile treatment of her in the application process. The Workplace Relations Commission found that this treatment arising from her membership of the Traveller Community was contrary to the Equal Status Act.

McDonagh v. Navan Hire Ltd. DEC-S2004-017. 

The Complainant argued before the Equality Tribunal that he was refused permission to hire equipment from Navan Hire Ltd, on the grounds that he is a member of the Traveller Community. This was in relation to his permanent address being a halting site. The Equality Officer found in favour of the Complainant and stated that the respondent had failed to rebut the claim of direct and indirect discrimination made against him.

Mitchell v Southern Health Board [2001] 12 E.L.R. 201

Mitchel is considered key precedent within cases establishing whether a prima facie case of discrimination exists and thus requires a shift in the burden of proof in line with the Racial Equality Directive 2000/43/EC. This dispute concerns a claim by Dr. Mitchell that the Southern Health Board discriminated against her on the grounds of her sex in terms of Section 2(a) of the Employment Equality Act, 1977 and in contravention of Section 3(1) and (3) of the Act in relation to access to the permanent post of Consultant Physician/Endocrinologist The Labour Court found that she had not proven on the balance of probabilities any of the assertions on which her complaint was based, so that there was no prima facie case of discrimination. 

Clare County Council v McDonagh & Anor [2022] IESC 2 

The Supreme Court overturned an interlocutory injunction which would have vacated a Traveller family who were unlawfully occupying a Council site. The decision was based on a proportionality assessment that hadn’t been performed by the lower Courts, and due to the protections offered by Article 45 of the Constitution and Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights. 

Connors v United Kingdom Judgment (Application no. 66746/01)  

The complainant, a Gypsy argued that the powers of eviction of local authorities amounted to illegitimate interference with Article 8, 6, 13 and Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR. The European Court of Human Rights found that the UK government violated the Applicant’s right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights as a result of the respondent’s eviction procedures on halting sites.  

Doherty & anor v South Dublin County Council & ors [2007] IEHC 4 

This judicial review focused on whether State parties were obliged to provide the applicants, as members of the Traveller Community, with a new serviced caravan, rather than accommodation consisting of bricks and mortar. The Court found in favour of the respondents, deeming the offer of temporary accommodation in bricks and mortar sufficiently reasonable in the circumstances. In relation to the operation of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2004 the court also found that it did not create new legal norms justiciable outside the Equality system framework established to deal with complaints.

A Minor v. Atlantic Troy Limited T/A Charleville Park Hotel ADJ 00020726

A family were refused emergency hotel accommodation on the basis that the person whose name was on the booking could not pay by credit card. The Workplace Relations Commission found the refusal as merely a device to deny accommodation on two grounds. That the persons received Housing Assistance and that they were members of the Traveller Community, contrary to sections 3(b) and 6 of the Equal Status Act 2000. 

A Minor v. Atlantic Troy Limited T/A Charleville Park Hotel ADJ-00020727    

A family were refused emergency hotel accommodation on the basis that the person who booked could not pay by credit card. The Workplace Relations Commission found this refusal to be a device to deny accommodation on two grounds that the persons received Housing Assistance and that they were members of the Traveller Community, contrary to sections 3(b) and 6 of the Equal Status Act 2000. 

Anne Joyce v Michael Ryan Funeral Directors DEC-S2014-012 

Anne Joyce brought a complaint against Michael Ryan Funeral Directors on the basis that they refused to facilitate the wake of her deceased son due to her status as an Irish Traveller. The Funeral Directors argued that Ms Joyce was refused service as it was against their policy to rent out the funeral home in the manner she requested. The Equality Officer found Ms Joyce’s evidence to be more credible and awarded her €6,384 in compensation for the distress caused.  

C & Ors v. Galway County Council [2017] IEHC 784  

This case concerned an application to the High Court to quash a decision to cease emergency accommodation following a refusal of an offer for transitional accommodation. The High Court held that the applicant failed to establish grounds for the reversal of the decision.  

Eileen Delaney, Hannah Carthy, Cathleen O'Reilly and Margaret O'Reilly v The Kil

The complainants were refused service in seven different premises on the 19th January 2001 in Kilkenny City on the ground that they are members of the Traveller Community. The publican denies these claims. The Equality Officer found under Section 3 of the Equal Status Act 2000 that a prima facie case of discrimination had occurred in the cases of three out of the four women present.  

Hirtu and others v. France (Application no. 24720/13) 

The Roma applicants claimed that their enforced evictions from a camp where they had been residing for six months breached Art 3 (Freedom from Inhuman or Degrading Treatment), Art 8 (Right to Private and Family life), and Art 13 (Effective Remedy). The Court ruled that although there had been no breach of Article 3, there had been a violation of Articles 8, and 13 owing to the absence of a proportionality assessment of the evictions. The ECtHR further finding a breach of Article 13 owing to the applicants’ inability to obtain a judicial review of the domestic decisions. 

Bridget O’Reilly v. Atlantic Troy Limited T/A Charleville Park Hotel ADJ-00020724  

A family were refused emergency hotel accommodation on the basis that the person who booked could not pay by credit card. The Workplace Relations Commission found this refusal to be a device to deny accommodation on two grounds that the persons received Housing Assistance and that they were members of the Traveller Community, contrary to sections 3(b) and 6 of the Equal Status Act 2000. 

Philip O'Neill v. Atlantic Troy Limited T/A Charleville Park Hotel ADJ-00020725 

A family were refused emergency hotel accommodation on the basis that the person who booked could not pay by credit card. The Workplace Relations Commission found this refusal to be a device to deny accommodation on two grounds that the persons received Housing Assistance and that they were members of the Traveller Community, contrary to sections 3(b) and 6 of the Equal Status Act 2000. 

Clare County Council v Bernard McDonagh and Helen McDonagh [2020] IECA 307 

This is an appeal against an order made in the High Court (Clare County Council v. McDonagh [2019] IEHC 662). The Judge concluded that the appellants failed to establish any basis on which they could conclude that the High Court Judge erred in granting the interlocutory reliefs sought by the Council and refused the claims advanced by the appellants.  

Clare County Council v Bernard McDonagh and Helen McDonagh [2021] IECA 140 

This is a judgment as to costs of the Court of Appeal judgment delivered on 12 November 2020. The Judge concluded that all orders of the High Court stand and ordered that the costs of both the High Court and the Court of Appeal be made against Bernard and Helen McDonagh.   

Clare County Council v. McDonagh [2019] IEHC 662 

The defendants claimed before the High Court that Clare Co. Co. had a statutory duty to provide them with accommodation after their accommodation became inhabitable due to an arson attack. The defendants’ case was based on a misunderstanding of allocation of public funding by Clare Co. Co. and so the counterclaim was dismissed by the Court.  

Bride v. Hotel ADJ - 00037223

The Complainant, a Traveller woman, attended a wedding showcase at a hotel and subsequently claimed discrimination under the Equal Status Acts having been denied information to facilitate holding her wedding reception on the premises. The Work Relations Commission ruled that she had been treated less favourably than other prospective brides because of her membership of the Traveller Community.

Anthony Corcoran and ors v. The Black Lion Pub DEC – S2004-063-066  

Two Traveller couples were refused service in a bar and complained of discriminatory treatment under the Equal Status Act 2000 The Equality Tribunal found that against the applicants concluding refusal of service was not on the grounds of their ethnicity. 

Toner, McCarthy and others v. Foley (District Court, 7th September 2021)

Five members of the Traveller Community were successful in their claim of discrimination in relation to a refusal of entry to a licenced premises (an outdoor music festival). Note: This case is an unreported District Court case and the information has been collected first hand via Court attendance, so there is no full judgment for this case.

Anguelova v. Bulgaria (Application no. 38361/97)

A 17-year-old Roma man was mistreated and died in police custody. The court found Bulgaria violated several Convention articles but couldn't prove the mistreatment or death was due to his ethnicity.

Bagdonavicius and Others v. Russia (application no. 19841/06)

The demolition of Roma homes in a Russian village due to regional development plan breached Article 8 ECHR due to lack of proportionality assessment, but the Court declined to assess a breach of Article 14 prohibiting discrimination.

Beard v. the United Kingdom (Application no. 24882/94)

A Gypsy couple were refused planning permission for mobile homes on their land. The European Court of Human Rights held there was no breach under Article 8 and Article 14 as the measures were proportionate with a legitimate aim.

Boacă and Others v. Romania (Application no. 40355/11)

The case originated in an application (no. 40355/11) against Romania, under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by seven Romanian nationals, on the basis that one of them had been a victim of police brutality, that the ensuing investigation was flawed, and that the victim had been discriminated against on the ground of his Roma ethnicity.

Burlya and Others v. Ukraine (application no. 3289/10)

The European Court of Human Rights found that there had been violations of both the substantive and procedural aspects of Article 3 taken together with Article 14 in a case involving an anti-Roma attack and the authorities' response in Ukraine.

CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD v. Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia C-83/14

In answer to a preliminary reference from Bulgaria, The CJEU ruled discrimination based on ethnic origin can be indirect and not require obvious inequality. It applies regardless of who is affected. The case involved a non-Roma complainant against a company placing electricity meters out of reach in a mostly Roma district.

John Connors v Feshea Limited, Ireland and the Attorney General [2024] IEHC 431

The applicant was refused service in the first-named respondent’s pub. Following two preliminary rulings related to the case in the District Court, he abandoned the case. This stand-alone Judicial Review case in the High Court was unsuccessful as the original claim had been struck out.

Joseph O'Donovan v Oriel House Hotel Limited t/a Oriel House Hotel ADJ-00036524

The complainants’ family was refused hotel accommodation and forced out of the premises as the hotel was apparently overbooked, despite them only making the booking a few hours earlier. The Workplace Relations Commission found that discrimination had occurred, and the complainant was awarded €3000.

Theresa O’Sullivan v Oriel House Hotel Limited t/a Oriel House Hotel ADJ-00036525

The complainants’ family was refused hotel accommodation and forced out of the premises as the hotel was apparently overbooked, despite them only making the booking a few hours earlier. The Workplace Relations Commission found that discrimination had occurred, and the complainant was awarded €3000.

Margaret O’Sullivan v Oriel House Hotel Limited t/a Oriel House Hotel ADJ-00036522

The complainants’ family was refused hotel accommodation and forced out of the premises as the hotel was apparently overbooked, despite them only making the booking a few hours earlier. The Workplace Relations Commission found that discrimination had occurred, and the complainant was awarded €5000.

European Roma and Travellers Forum (ERTF) v. Czech Republic Complaint No. 104/2014

The European Roma and Travellers Forum (ERTF) filed a complaint against the Czech Republic for violating Article 16 and Article 11 of the European Social Charter, and the European Committee of Social Rights found the Czech Republic guilty of insufficient access to housing, poor housing conditions, territorial segregation, forced evictions, and inadequate access to healthcare services.

Jim Connors (on behalf of two Minors) v Wayside Celtic Football Club ADJ-00046038

Two young boys who were members of the Travellers’ Community were prohibited from joining a soccer club. The Workplace Relations Commission found that discrimination had occurred, however, as the effects were minimal, ordered non-punitive redress.

Limerick Corporation v. Sheridan (1956) 90 ILTR 59

The High Court held that an order prohibiting the erection or retention of temporary dwellings within Limerick was invalid as it was ultra vires the powers conferred by section 31 of the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act, 1948.

Lisa Smith v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities & Anor. [2022] EWCA Civ 1391

The Court of Appeal found the UK government's definition of "Gypsies and Travellers" in Planning policy for Roma and Traveller sites to be unlawfully discriminatory, after Romani Gypsy Ms Smith was refused planning permission for a permanent site by the local planning authority.

Martin Casey and Natalie Quilligan v Texas Steakout Limited Texas Steakout ADJ-00045426 and ADJ-00045428

The Complainants’ family were turned away from the Respondent’s restaurant due to a booking system error, as well as human error. The WRC found that no discrimination had occurred against the Complainants. 

Moldovan and Others v. Romania (No. 2) Grand Chamber

Three Roma men were killed by a mob involving State agents and a further 25 Roma individuals’ homes were burned down, displacing them. The European Court of Human Rights held that there was violations of Article 3, Article 8, Article 6 and Article 14.

Bridget O’Reilly and Dinny O’Neill v Atlantic Troy Limited T/A Charleville Park Hotel [2024] IEHC 541

A family were refused emergency hotel accommodation on the basis that the person who booked could not pay by credit card. The High Court overturned the Circuit Court's decision, which had reversed the Workplace Relations Commission's (WRC) finding of discrimination, because the High Court determined that the Circuit Court hearing was unfair due to excessive intervention by the Circuit Court Judge.

Oršuš and others v. Croatia (Application no. 15766/03) 

The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 6 and Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 as the separation of Roma children into separate classes was deemed discriminatory and the five-year period taken to decide on the case was excessive. 

R.B. v. Hungary (Application no. 64602/12)

The European Court of Human Rights held that there was a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the inadequate investigation into the Roma applicant's allegations of racially motivated abuse.

Soare and Others v. Romania (application no 24329/02)  

Romania was held to have breached Article 2, Article 3 and Article 13 in relation to excessive use of police force against a 19-year-old Roma man.

 Victoria Ward V Superior Group Ltd ADJ-00046719 

The Complainant was refused entry to a function at a hotel by a security guard. The Respondent was misidentified and as such the WRC held that the complaint was not well-founded.

Case Of D.H. and others v. The Czech Republic (Application no. 57325/00) 

The European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber found unjustified placement of Roma children in inferior schools with less opportunities due to disproportionate testing and lack of informed parental consent. Roma culture specifics were not considered in the testing.