This is the main content layout table. This structures the main page content, and the secondary menus and banners
Home About Us Services Publications Information Publications Research Publications Codes of Practice Policy Publications Good Practice Publications Annual Reports Casework Reports Newsletters Submissions Articles All Articles Update by CEO Case Reports EU Briefings Information FAQs Events Research Equality Mainstreaming Unit Links Contact Us Translations Sitemap Gaeilge	Case Studies - Spring 2006 District Court Judge Makes Maximum Award in Discrimination Case under Intoxicating Liquor Act Equality Authority given leave to appear as Amicus Curiae in High Court case, should the Race Directive arise as part of the case. First Case on Sexual Orientation ground under Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003 1. District Court Judge Makes Maximum Award in Discrimination Case under Intoxicating Liquor Act The District Court recently awarded €6,300 in a case involving discrimination by a public house. This is the maximum award allowed under the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003. Sr Bríd Smith was refused access to Conway's Pub and Restaurant in Blackrock because she was accompanied by her guide dog. She arrived at the pub at 4.30pm to have a cup of coffee. She stated that she explained that she was allowed by law to bring her guide dog onto the premises but despite this the employee insisted she leave and ushered her through the door. Although a number of letters were exchanged Sr Smith felt that Conway's Pub and Restaurant had not accepted responsibility for the incident and did not make any effort to resolve the matter amicably or apologise to her. Sr Bríd Smith brought a discrimination case on the disability ground to the District Court under the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003. She was represented by the Equality Authority. The District Court found that she had been discriminated against under the disability ground and awarded €6,300. The scale of the award is important. To be effective, anti-discrimination legislation requires that awards made, where discrimination is found to have happened, are effective, proportionate and dissuasive. In making the maximum award allowed, the Judge has sent out a clear and unequivocal message that discrimination by licensed premises is unacceptable and will prove costly to those found to have discriminated against people under the Intoxicating Liquor Act. Discrimination by licensed premises has been a significant focus in the casework to date of the Equality Authority under the Equal Status Acts. The Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003 transferred jurisdiction for cases involving allegation of discrimination from the Equality Tribunal to the District Court. Discrimination by licensed premises remains a serious issue. It affects people with disabilities as well as Travellers, gay and lesbian people, Black and minority ethnic people and young and older people. The finding of, and the award made by, the District Court will hopefully stimulate a review of current practices within this sector. 2. Equality Authority given leave to appear as Amicus Curiae in High Court case, should the Race Directive arise as part of the case. Equality Authority to Play Role of Amicus Curiae for First Time in High Court Proceedings involving controversial trespass legislation. The Equality Authority was recently given leave to appear as amicus curiae (friend of the Court) in High Court proceedings being brought by a Traveller family against Ballina Town Council, Mayo County Council, the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the District Justice sitting in Ballina Court and Ireland and the Attorney General. Mr Justice Iarfhlaith O'Neill gave leave to the Equality Authority to appear as amicus curiae in relation to the application and interpretation of the Race Directive should it arise as part of the case. The case being taken by the Traveller family raises a number of issues. These include the failure to meet the accommodation needs of the Traveller family. The plaintiffs also contend that the Criminal Justice (Public Order Act) has a disproportionate and discriminatory impact on members of the Traveller community. This Act criminalises entry into and occupations of lands in certain situations. It gives members of An Garda Síochána broad powers including arrest and removal of caravans. The EU Race Directive prohibits discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin in a range of areas including housing. This is the first time that the Equality Authority has sought to play this role of amicus curiae (friend of the Court). Should the Race Directive arise in this case, it will provide an important opportunity to set out its relevance to the matters under consideration by the Court. This reflects a valuable precedent in the work of the Equality Authority in combating discrimination and promoting equality of opportunity. 3. First Case on Sexual Orientation ground under Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003 The Equality Authority welcomes the judgement of District Justice Clyne in Cork District Court that the conduct of Malone's Bar in Blarney, County Cork in relation to Myra McGuirk and Eileen Twomey amounted to discrimination on the sexual orientation ground contrary to section 19 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 2003. The two women had brought a claim of discrimination and harassment under the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003 against Malone's pub Blarney Co. Cork. The claim was brought under the sexual orientation ground and the claimants were supported by the Equality Authority. On 13th March 2005 the two women went to Malone's pub between 9.30 pm and 10 pm with two friends. They stated that there was a lively going away party taking place in the pub and they went to the back of the pub where they ordered drinks and put their names down to play pool. One of the women went to the bathroom where she stated she encountered a number of women from the party blowing up a naked life size doll. On her way out she stated that she met the owner of the pub and a male customer who started to speak to her. She stated that the owner of the pub informed the customer that he was wasting his time as the woman's girlfriend was nearby. Subsequently the two women played pool. After a game of doubles one of the women played a second game of singles. Her partner wished her luck and gave her a good luck kiss. The woman stated that the owner of the pub then informed her that if she did not refrain from such behaviour she would be asked to leave. The woman stated that her partner gave her a hug and told her they would finish their drinks and leave. After the two women hugged they stated that the bar staff cleared the pool table and turned off the lights. The women stated that they told the owner that he had no right to behave in this manner and that they had the same rights as everyone else in the pub. They stated that that the owner of the pub said he was the law in his own pub and that he threw his solicitor's business card at them. The courage of the claimants in bringing forward this case was highlighted by the Equality Authority. The incident was traumatic for them yet they have come forward as valuable role models for the gay and lesbian community in challenging homophobia. There is a significant underreporting of homophobia given the fear of exposure and further harassment for many lesbian and gay people. In such a context the outcome of this case is hugely important in beginning to break these fears and to affirm the rights of lesbian and gay people. This was a case where discrimination and harassment were triggered by normal day to day expressions of affection between two lesbian women. It captures the difficult context within which lesbian and gay people seek to relate and create partnerships of love and care. It highlights again the need to progress the introduction of partnership rights that affirm and celebrate same sex relationships in the same way as heterosexual relationships. However the failure to award compensation in this case was disappointing given the impact of the experience on the two women. Note: This article is taken from the Spring 2006 edition of Equality News	Search Tick the box to search just the current location and its sublocations Advanced Search

Case Studies - Spring 2006

District Court Judge Makes Maximum Award in Discrimination Case under Intoxicating Liquor Act
Equality Authority given leave to appear as Amicus Curiae in High Court case, should the Race Directive arise as part of the case.
First Case on Sexual Orientation ground under Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003

1. District Court Judge Makes Maximum Award in Discrimination Case under Intoxicating Liquor Act

The District Court recently awarded €6,300 in a case involving discrimination by a public house. This is the maximum award allowed under the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003.

Sr Bríd Smith was refused access to Conway's Pub and Restaurant in Blackrock because she was accompanied by her guide dog. She arrived at the pub at 4.30pm to have a cup of coffee. She stated that she explained that she was allowed by law to bring her guide dog onto the premises but despite this the employee insisted she leave and ushered her through the door.

Although a number of letters were exchanged Sr Smith felt that Conway's Pub and Restaurant had not accepted responsibility for the incident and did not make any effort to resolve the matter amicably or apologise to her. Sr Bríd Smith brought a discrimination case on the disability ground to the District Court under the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003. She was represented by the Equality Authority. The District Court found that she had been discriminated against under the disability ground and awarded €6,300.

The scale of the award is important. To be effective, anti-discrimination legislation requires that awards made, where discrimination is found to have happened, are effective, proportionate and dissuasive. In making the maximum award allowed, the Judge has sent out a clear and unequivocal message that discrimination by licensed premises is unacceptable and will prove costly to those found to have discriminated against people under the Intoxicating Liquor Act.

Discrimination by licensed premises has been a significant focus in the casework to date of the Equality Authority under the Equal Status Acts. The Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003 transferred jurisdiction for cases involving allegation of discrimination from the Equality Tribunal to the District Court.

Discrimination by licensed premises remains a serious issue. It affects people with disabilities as well as Travellers, gay and lesbian people, Black and minority ethnic people and young and older people. The finding of, and the award made by, the District Court will hopefully stimulate a review of current practices within this sector.

2. Equality Authority given leave to appear as Amicus Curiae in High Court case, should the Race Directive arise as part of the case.

Equality Authority to Play Role of Amicus Curiae for First Time in High Court Proceedings involving controversial trespass legislation.

The Equality Authority was recently given leave to appear as amicus curiae (friend of the Court) in High Court proceedings being brought by a Traveller family against Ballina Town Council, Mayo County Council, the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the District Justice sitting in Ballina Court and Ireland and the Attorney General.

Mr Justice Iarfhlaith O'Neill gave leave to the Equality Authority to appear as amicus curiae in relation to the application and interpretation of the Race Directive should it arise as part of the case.

The case being taken by the Traveller family raises a number of issues. These include the failure to meet the accommodation needs of the Traveller family. The plaintiffs also contend that the Criminal Justice (Public Order Act) has a disproportionate and discriminatory impact on members of the Traveller community. This Act criminalises entry into and occupations of lands in certain situations. It gives members of An Garda Síochána broad powers including arrest and removal of caravans.

The EU Race Directive prohibits discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin in a range of areas including housing.

This is the first time that the Equality Authority has sought to play this role of amicus curiae (friend of the Court). Should the Race Directive arise in this case, it will provide an important opportunity to set out its relevance to the matters under consideration by the Court. This reflects a valuable precedent in the work of the Equality Authority in combating discrimination and promoting equality of opportunity.

3. First Case on Sexual Orientation ground under Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003

The Equality Authority welcomes the judgement of District Justice Clyne in Cork District Court that the conduct of Malone's Bar in Blarney, County Cork in relation to Myra McGuirk and Eileen Twomey amounted to discrimination on the sexual orientation ground contrary to section 19 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 2003.

The two women had brought a claim of discrimination and harassment under the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003 against Malone's pub Blarney Co. Cork. The claim was brought under the sexual orientation ground and the claimants were supported by the Equality Authority.

On 13th March 2005 the two women went to Malone's pub between 9.30 pm and 10 pm with two friends. They stated that there was a lively going away party taking place in the pub and they went to the back of the pub where they ordered drinks and put their names down to play pool.

One of the women went to the bathroom where she stated she encountered a number of women from the party blowing up a naked life size doll. On her way out she stated that she met the owner of the pub and a male customer who started to speak to her. She stated that the owner of the pub informed the customer that he was wasting his time as the woman's girlfriend was nearby.

Subsequently the two women played pool. After a game of doubles one of the women played a second game of singles. Her partner wished her luck and gave her a good luck kiss. The woman stated that the owner of the pub then informed her that if she did not refrain from such behaviour she would be asked to leave. The woman stated that her partner gave her a hug and told her they would finish their drinks and leave. After the two women hugged they stated that the bar staff cleared the pool table and turned off the lights.

The women stated that they told the owner that he had no right to behave in this manner and that they had the same rights as everyone else in the pub. They stated that that the owner of the pub said he was the law in his own pub and that he threw his solicitor's business card at them.

The courage of the claimants in bringing forward this case was highlighted by the Equality Authority. The incident was traumatic for them yet they have come forward as valuable role models for the gay and lesbian community in challenging homophobia. There is a significant underreporting of homophobia given the fear of exposure and further harassment for many lesbian and gay people. In such a context the outcome of this case is hugely important in beginning to break these fears and to affirm the rights of lesbian and gay people.

This was a case where discrimination and harassment were triggered by normal day to day expressions of affection between two lesbian women. It captures the difficult context within which lesbian and gay people seek to relate and create partnerships of love and care. It highlights again the need to progress the introduction of partnership rights that affirm and celebrate same sex relationships in the same way as heterosexual relationships.

However the failure to award compensation in this case was disappointing given the impact of the experience on the two women.

Note: This article is taken from the Spring 2006 edition of Equality News