A hotel has been ordered to pay €3,000 in compensation to a Traveller for the “humiliating” way he and his family were refused admission to a restaurant on the day of his daughter’s christening.
The adjudication officer at the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), Enda Murphy, said he was making the award “due to the seriousness of the discrimination and the humiliating effect it had on the man due to the very public manner in which he was refused entrance to the hotel restaurant”.
The hotel claimed that patrons were required to pre-book meals on the Sunday as it was Mother’s Day, March 13th, 2016. However, this occasion had actually fallen one week prior on March 6th.
No parties are named in the WRC report and Mr Murphy said that he found the complainant “to be . . . wholly credible”.
In his evidence, the complainant said he and his family were met by two doormen and told, “sorry not today, we have been told not to serve you.” When the man asked for a reason, he was told Travellers would not be served anymore.
The incident was subsequently reported to the Garda. The complainant said that he would frequent the hotel on a monthly basis and had been there as recently as the previous week.
Pre-booked customers
In cross-examination, the man denied that the reason he was refused entry was that only pre-booked customers or residents were being served lunch as it was Mother’s Day. He replied that the date in question was not Mother’s Day, as this was celebrated on March 6th.
The complainant claimed the reason for refusal was because he was a Traveller.
The hotel argued that reservations were required for the Mother’s Day lunch.
The hotel also stated that the complainant’s evidence that a security guard would openly state that entry was refused because he was a Traveller “ is not plausible”.
Mr Murphy said it was open to the hotel to request hotel staff, including the security guard, who were on duty to provide evidence. But such witnesses were not produced.
He said the hotel had since changed hands, but the new owners are vicariously liable for the discrimination in accordance with the provisions of section 42 of the Equal Status Acts.
Mr Murphy found that the complainant was refused access and this was attributable to his membership of the Traveller community.
