This article is from page 18 of the 2008-05-27 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 18 JPG
THE Equality Authority has rejected a complaint by Travellers over not getting served lunch at the Auburn Lodge hotel in Ennis.
The dispute concerned a complaint by Patrick O’Reilly, Patrick Moloney, Mary Moloney, Kathleen Stokes, Christopher Stokes and two minors that they were discriminated against, contrary to the Equal Status Act by the staff of the Auburn Lodge Hotel, Ennis, on the grounds of their mem- bership of the Traveller community.
They claimed they were discrimi- nated against in not being provided with a meal when they called to the Hotel at 6pm on Friday, April 18, 2003.
The hotel claimed that discrimina- tion was not a factor, that the day in question was Good Friday and that they had closed their carvery after lunch when the chef had finished his Sausam
Given the length of time before the case was due to go to hearing, a letter was sent to the complainants’ solicitors in October 2007 seeking confirmation that they still wished to pursue their complaint and were available to attend a hearing in Ennis over the coming months.
Confirmation was _ subsequently received and the complainants indi- cated that they would be available to attend the hearing.
On January 7, 2008 both parties were informed that the hearing would be held on February 20 and were asked for details of those who would be attending. Both parties were also expressly told that the tribunal could not entertain requests to postpone a hearing save in exceptional cir- cumstances and that requests of that nature must be submitted in writing in good time for the attention of the Director.
The complainants failed to attend the hearing and the respondents made the argument that the only appropriate course of action for the Equality Officer to take was to dis- miss the complaints.
The tribunal officer ruled that the onus was on the complainants to es- tablish a prima facie case and it was essential that evidence was provided in the presence of the respondents to give them the opportunity to chal- lenge any allegations made against ntoONF
As the complainants did not attend, they failed to establish a prima facie case and the tribunal ruled in favour of the respondents.