A gay man was discriminated against on sexual orientation grounds when he was asked to leave a Waterford hotel, the Equality Tribunal has ruled. The decision was one of 15 published yesterday.
In the case, taken on sexual orientation grounds, Mr Martin O'Regan made the claim against The Bridge Hotel, Waterford. A former employee of the hotel, Mr O'Regan said he was refused service and asked to leave the hotel before closing time on Saturday, June 8th, 2002. He claimed it was due to the fact he was known to be gay. The hotel totally rejected it operated a discriminatory policy against gay people. It maintained the complainant was asked to leave because he was not a resident.
The Equality Officer concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that a member of staff had singled out Mr O'Regan and had asked him to leave and this request was because he knew the complainant was gay. Accordingly he found the complainant was less favourably treated by the respondents because of his sexual orientation and that this treatment constituted discrimination, contrary to provisions of the Equal Status Act 2000.
He ordered that the hotel pay Mr O'Regan €1,000 for the humiliation and suffering experienced. Mr O'Regan had waived anonymity in the case.
The Equality Officer also ordered that arrangements be put in place within the Bridge Hotel to ensure that Mr O'Regan was made welcome, on an equal basis to heterosexual customers, if he decides to go there in future. In addition, he ordered that the respondents ensure all staff were made fully aware of their obligations under the Equal Status Act to ensure that incidents of this nature did not occur again.
In another decision the Eastern Area Health Board has been ordered to pay €16,000 to a staff nurse in compensation for indirect discrimination. Ms Jennifer Kiersey was a temporary staff nurse at St Colman's Hospital and refused an offer of a permanent full-time post due to family commitments.
After being offered the position on a second occasion, she asked for a permanent part-time post in terms of a flexible working agreement in the health service, or a job-share position.
At the time there were 12 vacant positions in the hospital. Ms Kiersey's request was not accommodated.
The health board stated that it could objectively justify its decision not to offer the complainant a permanent part-time or job-share position.
The Equality Officer held the health board indirectly discriminated against Ms Kiersey on the grounds of gender when it failed to objectively justify its decision not to afford her the opportunity of working in a permanent part-time position. She found that any disadvantage attached to part-time working instituted prime facie an indirect discrimination against women.