[ad_1]
A future girlfriend received € 15,000 after the Commission on Workplace Relations discovered that a hotel discriminated against her when its staff learned that she was a Traveler.
The woman successfully argued that the unidentified hotel had treated her coldly and treated her with disdain when staff learned that she is a member of the traveling community and refused to engage with her further, preventing her from make a reservation for your wedding reception. .
Despite informing the hotel that she “absolutely loved” the place, she argued that the treatment her staff gave her left her “devastated, humiliated, and a second-class citizen.”
Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the bride-to-be sent an email to the hotel in July 2019 to see if she would host the wedding reception.
The hotel wedding coordinator responded with an invitation to attend a wedding exhibition at the hotel the next day.
The woman said that when she was waiting to speak to the coordinator, other staff members were watching her. When he finally spoke with the coordinator, they did not give him a tour of the site despite another couple taking a full tour of the facility. She described her interaction with the coordinator as “distant and hasty.”
Despite emailing the hotel seeking dates for the reception, the woman said she received no response to her initial email or subsequent emails.
You filed a formal complaint under the State Equality Laws 2000-2015 in October 2019 seeking an explanation from the hotel as to why it did not respond to your inquiries about a possible date for the reception.
Later that month, she received an email from the wedding coordinator apologizing for the delay in responding “and stating that there appeared to have been a misunderstanding as she (Ms A) was waiting to hear from the plaintiff after his initial meeting on July 21, 2019 ”.
The bride-to-be argued that she and other people who accompanied her in the wedding window are “easily identifiable as members of the traveling community.”
He also argued that his last name is common among Travelers and that the city where he resides has the highest proportional traveler population in the state.
The hotel, as a defendant, did not respond to the bride-to-be’s complaint or commit to the WRC. He also did not attend an oral hearing on the matter, the WRC concluded.
In conclusion, WRC Judge Ray Flaherty ruled: “The evidence clearly shows that the disconnection coincided with (the coordinator) learning of the plaintiff’s last name on the morning of July 21, 2019, a few hours before attendance. from the plaintiff to the wedding exhibition. ” . “
“Having carefully reviewed and considered all the evidence adduced, I find that there is no plausible or logical explanation for this disengagement other than the fact that the complainant was a member of the travel community. FraudConsequently, I find that the plaintiff has established, not only a prima facie case of discrimination, but a strong and valid claim that she was discriminated against because of her membership in the travel community. “
Mr Flaherty awarded the woman € 15,000 in compensation.
Speaking after the decision, the Bride-to-be said: “It is a very satisfying feeling, that we as Irish travelers do matter and deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, as it is a human right given to all citizens of Ireland.”
Meanwhile, Christopher McCann, an attorney for the Free Legal Aid Center (FLAC) Traveler Legal Service who acted on behalf of the woman, said: “We are very pleased with the outcome. Our client was subjected to humiliating treatment by the hotel in question. This decision shows that those who engage in commercial life can be penalized if they deny their goods or services to travelers.
Eilis Barry, the organisAtion’s CEO said: ‘What we at FLAC see through our dedicated Traveler Legal Service is that many Travelers experience great difficulty when it comes to reserving venues to celebrate the important events of their lives such as weddings, Holy Communions and funerals.
“The WRC’s decision shows that this type of practice, which essentially amounts to a kind of social apartheid, will not be tolerated.
Irish independent
[ad_2]