Man’s discrimination claim over refusal of service in shop for not wearing facemask dismissed

A man who allegedly told staff at a Co Mayo store that everyone was ‘brainwashed’ after a cashier refused to serve him unless he wore a face mask has lost his discrimination claim.

The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) heard that the incident happened at a “very bad time” in Belmullet, eight weeks after the area was recorded as having the highest Covid-19 infection rate in Ireland.

Noel McGrath, who said he had an exemption from the mask rules in place at the time, said a cashier told him ‘I am not serving you without a mask’ when he went to pay for goods at Homevalue in Belmullet on March 22nd of last year.

His complaint under the Equal Status Act on the grounds of disability against the store’s owner, Aurivo Co-Operative Society Limited, was dismissed by the WRC.

Ask Owen Doyle: When should a rugby referee give a warning, and when should they give a penalty?

---

Taxation on investments: What changes might be on the way?

---

Gardaí to use undercover lorry to see into cars and HGVs and film distracted drivers

---

Radio: The 2 Johnnies set to leave 2FM next week, RTÉ confirms

---

Mr McGrath told a hearing last month that nothing was said to him about wearing a face mask until he went to pay. He said he was asked why he did not wear a face covering in a “raised voice in front of other customers” and replied that he was “exempt”.

The cashier then asked him to show “a badge” and he told her she was “breaking the law”. He said the cashier’s response was ‘I do not care as I have a sick father at home’.

He said two other members of staff also refused to serve him and that he was only able to complete his purchase when the manager returned to the shop after his lunch break and gave a direction to a worker.

’Very bad time’

In her evidence, the cashier said the incident happened at a “very bad time” with Covid-19 in Belmullet and that her father was “vulnerable”. She said there was “a bit of over and back” after she asked Mr McGrath to show a “badge” and that he said ‘he knew the law’.

Another worker at the shop said Mr McGrath then approached him and a colleague and told him what happened. He said the complainant told them: ‘This whole thing is a f***ing joke. Everyone is brainwashed. It’s all a conspiracy’.

The witness said his colleague replied: ‘Well if that’s the case we’re all brainwashed and if we’re all brainwashed, I am too, and I won’t serve you either’. The hearing was told the worker who replied to Mr McGrath was no longer with the company.

Mr McGrath said the statements these witnesses described him making were “misleading and deflecting”. He said he “had never been in any difficulty with the law” and “had security clearances at the highest level”.

Gráinne Quinn BL, who appeared for Aurivo Co-Op instructed by its in-house solicitor, said it was the company’s position that Mr McGrath was offered a mask but refused, saying he did not have to wear one without giving a reason. She said the manager directed an employee to serve Mr McGrath when he got back to the shop and apologised to him for any inconvenience.

She submitted that it was only at that point that Mr McGrath said he had a medical condition and that there were alternative arrangements allowing people do their business without coming into the shop.

Not mentioned

Adjudicating officer Janet Hughes said there had been “quite a few cases involving claims of discrimination related to a complainant not wearing a mask during the Covid pandemic”.

“[The cashier’s] responses and indeed her evidence at the hearing were clearly related to her concerns about herself and her father and not any dismissal of a health issue since none was mentioned,” Ms Hughes wrote. There was “no exchange” between Mr McGrath and the cashier about his health, just that he had “an exemption”, she added.

Mr McGrath approached the cashier’s colleagues and spoke about her in “disparaging terms”, again without mentioning “any exemption or any medical reason for his refusal to wear a mask”. She wrote that the evidence of the shop worker who witnessed the interaction was “credible” and “cannot be dismissed”.

“The refusal to serve the complainant was not related to a disability at any stage and as such discrimination cannot have been said to have occurred as matter of fact,” she wrote, and dismissed the claim.