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.

Facts 

A Traveller woman contacted a local hotel to inquire about availability for a wedding reception. The hotel invited her to a wedding showcase which she attended with members of her family. She claimed afterwards that she was not given the same attention as other attendees and received no response to follow-up inquiries, despite trying to book a date. 

The Complainant alleges that this differential treatment was due to her Traveller ethnicity. She notified the hotel, in an ES1, of her intention to seek redress under the Equal Status Acts if she did not receive a satisfactory response, prompting an apology from the hotel. The hotel claims she initially sought a reception at short notice and that its Wedding Coordinator was absent on compassionate leave. The Respondent submits that it hosts weddings for members of the Traveller Community and that it currently employs a member of the Traveller Community. 

Issues 

1 Time limit. 

According to section 21 of the Equal Status Acts as amended, a claim for redress must be made within six months from the occurrence of the prohibited conduct, and an extension may be granted by an Adjudication Officer up to a maximum of 12 months if the Complainant demonstrates reasonable cause for the delay.  

In this case, although the claim was submitted two days after the deadline, the Complainant was able to provide evidence of being in the hospital during the relevant period, which constituted reasonable cause for the delay. 

2 The substantive issue 

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the Equal Status Acts, the Complainant must demonstrate three elements: (i) that she is covered by the relevant discriminatory ground, (ii) that there was specific treatment by the Respondent, and (iii) that the Complainant was treated less favourably than another person would have been.  

Therefore, the question at issue is whether the Complainant was treated less favourably than others, either at the wedding showcase or in correspondence with the hotel, and whether this treatment was due to her status as a member of the Traveller Community. 

Reasoning 

The Adjudication Officer noted that discrimination can be conscious or sub-conscious, and mere denials of discriminatory motive must be approached with caution (Nevins, Murphy, Flood v Portroe Stevedores Limited [2005] 16 E.L.R. 282).  

The Adjudication Officer found the behaviour of the Respondent, particularly in relation to the ES1 form which raised the complaint about treatment to be problematic. Previous correspondence from the Complainant had been ignored, while the ES1 was treated more as general correspondence rather than initiating a complaint. There was therefore an inadequate response to the ES1 notification which failed to provide a justification for her treatment of the Complainant. Although the Complainant did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination at the wedding showcase, she did so with the evidence of communication between the parties afterward, which the Respondent failed to rebut. 

Conclusion

The Complainant was discriminated against – having been denied the opportunities to use the Respondent’s facilities - based on her membership of the Traveller Community and the Respondent was in breach of the Equal Status Acts. 

Compensation 

The Complainant was awarded €5000 in compensation for the effects of the discrimination involved.