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.

This case is based on the same facts as the following cases: 

Ann Stokes v Atlantic Troy Limited Charleville Park Hotel & Leisure Club ADJ-00026051 (Case Summmary) (Full Judgment)

Bridget Power v Atlantic Troy Limited Charleville Park Hotel & Leisure Club ADJ-00026062 (Case Summmary) (Full Judgment)

Facts 

Ann Stokes and two others were booked into a hotel. The booking was made by Annalise Power. On arrival, they were refused the accommodation on the basis that they could not pay by credit card. The Complainant argued that this was merely an excuse and that this was in fact a case of discrimination due to their membership of the Traveller Community, but also that the policy in general was discriminatory in nature. The Respondent argued that this policy applies to everyone and was intended to protect the hotel against financial loss due to unpaid additional bills or damage. 

Issues 

Section 3(1)(c) of the Equal Status Act, in defining discrimination, provides “where an apparently neutral provision would put a person [including a member of the Traveller Community compared to a person who is not a member of the Traveller Community] … at a particular disadvantage compared to other persons unless the provision is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim is proportionate and necessary’ 

There are therefore three tests to be applied.  

1. Is the policy neutral in that it applies to all who want to stay at the hotel? 
2. Does that neutral provision place a member of the Traveller Community at a particular disadvantage compared to other persons? 
3. Is the measure objectively justifiable in that it serves a legitimate aim and the means of achieving the aim are appropriate and necessary?

Reasoning

1 Neutrality 

The policy did apply to all who stayed at the hotel. 

2 Disadvantage 

The disadvantage, in this case, is measured by comparing the effect of the measure, of requiring a credit card, on members of the Traveller Community compared with those who are not members of the Traveller Community. For this purpose, the comparator in consideration of the credit card requirement was the wider population of Ireland. Given the financial requirements imposed on anyone who wishes to own a credit card, taken in conjunction with the substantially higher level of unemployment among Travellers, results in a natural conclusion that the provision of requiring a credit card would place a member of the Traveller Community at a particular disadvantage compared to other adults in Ireland. Therefore, the policy of the hotel in refusing accommodation to Ann Stokes’ companion on the basis of not being able to provide a credit card was an act of discrimination against her as a member of the Traveller Community. 

3 Objectively Justifiable 

Finally, the hotel claimed that it required credit cards in order to protect itself against unpaid bills and damages. This was found to be  a legitimate aim, but it was determined that it was not appropriate or necessary since it would not in fact protect them, and other measures could have been used, such as a cash deposit or limiting access to certain services. 

Moreover, even if another hotel in Ireland or hotels in other countries operate the same practice, it does not render that practice lawful under the Equal Status Act. 

Conclusion  

The blanket insistence on a credit card is unacceptable when the failure to provide that card is then used as the means of turning away a person who is, and was known by the Respondent to be, a member of a protected category. In addition, because members of the Traveller Community are more likely to experience poor economic status the Complainant is more likely than not to be at a disadvantage compared to others in the adult community as a whole. The application of the policy of refusing accommodation based on a failure to present a credit card was not found to be appropriate and proportionate. Other means of achieving the legitimate aim could have been offered but were not. 

Annalise Power was awarded €3500 in compensation. The award would have been greater but for remarks she made to the hotel manager regarding his nationality.  

The judgment explicitly stopped short of requiring any blanket change of policy by the hotel, but significant compensation was justified as a deterrent to the simplistic nature of the policy, and to encourage reconsideration of it.