Over-28's door policies - are they legal?

sarkozy

I've found it hard to find information about this.

Last Friday, I and a group of friends tried to get into The Dean Hotel on Harcourt St., Dublin, around 6pm. We weren't even drinking. As I understand it, it's illegal for establishments to refuse admission/service to people on age grounds because, under the Equal Status Act, it's age discrimination.

We were refused entry because the youngest of our party is 22; the oldest is 34.

I'd like to know if this is categorically illegal. I had heard that door staff have certain grounds on which they can refuse entry, e.g. person under-age, a person intoxicated, or other concrete reasons.

However, the reason given by the doorman in this specific case was that the person is under 28 and they have a strict over-28's policy.

irishgeo

sarkozy wrote: »

I've found it hard to find information about this.

Last Friday, I and a group of friends tried to get into The Dean Hotel on Harcourt St., Dublin, around 6pm. We weren't even drinking. As I understand it, it's illegal for establishments to refuse admission/service to people on age grounds because, under the Equal Status Act, it's age discrimination.

We were refused entry because the youngest of our party is 22; the oldest is 34.

I'd like to know if this is categorically illegal. I had heard that door staff have certain grounds on which they can refuse entry, e.g. person under-age, a person intoxicated, or other concrete reasons.

However, the reason given by the doorman in this specific case was that the person is under 28 and they have a strict over-28's policy.

seems you have a case

In addition an Equality Officer caused controversy amongst publicans by ruling that they could not ban children from the pub after a certain hour. Recently a well known and “trendy” pub in Dublin city centre had to pay €1,000 compensation to an elderly man who was turned away at the door because the doorman said he was not a regular. This was seen as discrimination on the grounds of age.

http://www.duncangrehan.com/home/the-equal-status-act/

Greenmachine

I would be surprised if you had any success in pursuing this.

L1011

Minimum ages are generally accepted as being valid if consistently and completely enforced.

Generally anywhere with a very high minimum age is going to be filled with people at least twice that age, anyway... If you were silver-chasing, fair enough!

sarkozy

Greenmachine wrote: »

I would be surprised if you had any success in pursuing this.

Thanks for the commentary, but I'm trying to establish the legal situation, consumers' rights and how the situation may be successfully resolved at the time.

L1011 wrote:

Minimum ages are generally accepted as being valid if consistently and completely enforced.

Generally anywhere with a very high minimum age is going to be filled with people at least twice that age, anyway... If you were silver-chasing, fair enough!

Perhaps, but is it legal? Can anything be said or done to resolve the situation calmly, rationally, etc. there and then. I can only assume venues enforce (possibly) illegal policies on the basis no one will ever take a case against them, which is a huge risk, mostly to reputation, and financially.

As I said, I'd rather know what the situation is in order to avoid being a victim of it in the future.

Riesen_Meal

sarkozy wrote: »

Thanks for the commentary, but I'm trying to establish the legal situation, consumers' rights and how the situation may be successfully resolved at the time.

I think there is some form of a case, even purely for a complaint - it is discrimination over age at the end of the day....

Afaik they had to get rid of the "over 21s" rule a while back, also the likes of "ladies night" in clubs is deemed wrong according to the equal stature act - how many clubs/pubs enforce this law?

Not many I would think....

You still see a lot of "ladies night" ads around pubs and clubs who clearly don't give a shìt...

athtrasna

I would think legal discussion might be a better place for this as there are some qualified professionals over there but iirc the last time this came up it was found to be legal

sarkozy

Will do. Between the Equal Status Act and the Intoxicating Liquor Act, it seems to me that the law has been written deliberately vague in this area. The irony here is that we ended up going to the Camden Court Hotel where I drank a coffee and everyone else had one or two beers. I mean, I get it was Friday on Harcourt St., beside Copper's, so it feels like more of an injustice that we were going in there to work on a work-related project for a couple of hours and we were discriminated against like that. We would have been the model clientele!

sarkozy

I have searched past threads here and, in light of hearing about changes made in this area, and past threads being quite old, I thought I'd pose the question again.

Last Friday, I and a group of friends tried to get into The Dean Hotel on Harcourt St., Dublin, around 6pm. We had not been drinking; we were meeting at The Dean in regard to a work-related project. As I understand it, it's illegal for establishments to refuse service to people on age grounds because, under the Equal Status Act, it's age discrimination. At the same time, I also understand there is some constructive ambiguity going on in relation to the Intoxicating Liquor Act, which certainly didn't apply to me that evening as I was only drinking coffee

The simple fact is, while standing on the property entranceway, were refused entry by the doorman because the youngest of our party is 22; the oldest is 34.

I'd like to know if this is illegal or not. I had heard that door staff have certain grounds on which they can refuse entry, e.g. person under-age, a person intoxicated, or other concrete reasons, but not the nine grounds.

However, the reason given by the doorman in this specific case was that the person is under-28 and they have a strict over-28's policy.

I would also like to know how such a thing could be resolved constructively in future. I will probably communicated with The Dean Hotel myself about my disappointment, but first, I want to establish some legal facts.

Losty Dublin

sarkozy wrote: »

I have searched past threads here and, in light of hearing about changes made in this area, and past threads being quite old, I thought I'd pose the question again.

Last Friday, I and a group of friends tried to get into The Dean Hotel on Harcourt St., Dublin, around 6pm. We had not been drinking; we were meeting at The Dean in regard to a work-related project. As I understand it, it's illegal for establishments to refuse service to people on age grounds because, under the Equal Status Act, it's age discrimination. At the same time, I also understand there is some constructive ambiguity going on in relation to the Intoxicating Liquor Act, which certainly didn't apply to me that evening as I was only drinking coffee

The simple fact is, while standing on the property entranceway, were refused entry by the doorman because the youngest of our party is 22; the oldest is 34.

I'd like to know if this is illegal or not. I had heard that door staff have certain grounds on which they can refuse entry, e.g. person under-age, a person intoxicated, or other concrete reasons, but not the nine grounds.

However, the reason given by the doorman in this specific case was that the person is under-28 and they have a strict over-28's policy.

I would also like to know how such a thing could be resolved constructively in future. I will probably communicated with The Dean Hotel myself about my disappointment, but first, I want to establish some legal facts.

If you want legal facts then you should contact a legal professional. There are some solicitors who will specialise in issues relating to bar licences and some who will be expert in equality issues. A decent professional will send you their way if needs be.

Graham

Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003

(4) If—

(a) the holder of a licence or other authorisation which permits the sale of intoxicating liquor adopts a policy of refusing to supply intoxicating liquor to any person below a specified age which exceeds 18 years,

(b) a notice setting out the policy is displayed in a conspicuous place in or on the exterior of the premises, and

(c) the policy is implemented in good faith,

a refusal to serve intoxicating liquor to such a person shall not constitute discrimination on the age ground.

sarkozy

Losty Dublin wrote: »

If you want legal facts then you should contact a legal professional. There are some solicitors who will specialise in issues relating to bar licences and some who will be expert in equality issues. A decent professional will send you their way if needs be.

I'm not taking legal action in this case. I'm looking for something a bit more than unfounded comment. Just to be clearer in relation to the next time. I have tried to find official guidance online, and it's been impossible (for me, anyway).

Graham: thanks. And, in the event of no notice being given, I presume establishments can still do what they like? And, I presume that 'in good faith' is not defined in any sense, leaving it up to a court to define 'in good faith' on a case-by-case basis?

moleyv

Any bars that I know with 'older' age restrictions have it clearly shown at the door or just inside.

dudara

athtrasna wrote: »

I would think legal discussion might be a better place for this as there are some qualified professionals over there but iirc the last time this came up it was found to be legal

@athtrasna - Please don't tell posters to create another thread in another forum. Now we have duplicate threads. Instead, use the Report Post function to alert a moderator that a thread should be moved.

dudara

athtrasna

dudara wrote: »

@athtrasna - Please don't tell posters to create another thread in another forum. Now we have duplicate threads. Instead, use the Report Post function to alert a moderator that a thread should be moved.

dudara

Apologies, I certainly didn't intend for the OP to duplicate the post, was on mobile and didn't have time to look up the previous discussion.

delahuntv

Any establishment may decide on an age policy once that age policy is enforced on all patrons.

so if a pub says over 28's only and allows some 24 year olds in, then other 24 year olds could claim discrimination.

Same that a pub can say "no children"

Equally some off licenses will say over 21 only.

delahuntv

Any establishment may decide on an age policy once that age policy is enforced on all patrons.

so if a pub says over 28's only and allows some 24 year olds in, then other 24 year olds could claim discrimination.

Same that a pub can say "no children"

Equally some off licenses will say over 21 only.

MarkAnthony

There's legislation on point, if you can't be arsed doing a search, I can't be arsed looking it up again. I genuinely don't remember the exact wording and to be fair your post did not originate here.

That said, and I've asked this question about a bazzillion times, if they don't want your business why do you want to drink there?

delahuntv

to save the OP the hassle and to show that the establishment was 100% correct, here it is.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/act/pub/0031/sec0025.html

also, nice "find" - as it good to see there's a premises that has a mature audience if I'm in Dublin some evening.

MarkAnthony

Does that legislation allow them to refuse entry though?

delahuntv

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Does that legislation allow them to refuse entry though?

not specifically, but considering it would not be possible to watch a particular group at all times, refusng entry to those in the group under the set age would be considered reasonable especially if the entire premises the person was entering was licensed to serve alcohol.

MarkAnthony

delahuntv wrote: »

not specifically, but considering it would not be possible to watch a particular group at all times, refusng entry to those in the group under the set age would be considered reasonable especially if the entire premises the person was entering was licensed to serve alcohol.

I'm sorry to be difficult but on what, other than common sense, is that based?

I can think of no reference to it in legislation nor am I aware of any decision on point. More than happy to be corrected.

I also disagree with your assesment, bar staff should be as diligently enforcing an age policy as the door staff.

delahuntv

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I'm sorry to be difficult but on what, other than common sense, is that based?

I can think of no reference to it in legislation nor am I aware of any decision on point. More than happy to be corrected.

I also disagree with your assesment, bar staff should be as diligently enforcing an age policy as the door staff.

In my opinion (and I'm just a lay perosn with an interest in the legal arena)
if such a case came to court, a judge would look at the reasonableness of the policy in relation to the stated aim that the bar did not want to be serving anyone under 28 and in order to ensure fairness and to ensure that they applied to rule to everyone under 28, that they checked age at the door.

It would not be reasonable for bar staff to check the age of everyone each time a drink was ordered and because in most bars, people order drinks in groups, then to apply the over 28 rule properly every person under 28 would have to be watched at all time to ensure they did not drink alcohol at any stage. As this is not reasonable, refusing entry to the premises is the most appropriate way of ensuring the age limit is applied.

Littlehorny

I thought a pub, being a public house could not set an age limit, so as long as you can prove you are over 18 you cannot be stopped entering. But a night club can class itself as a private club in the eyes of the law and so is free to enforce an age limit if it sees fit.

MarkAnthony

delahuntv wrote: »

In my opinion (and I'm just a lay perosn with an interest in the legal arena)
if such a case came to court, a judge would look at the reasonableness of the policy in relation to the stated aim that the bar did not want to be serving anyone under 28 and in order to ensure fairness and to ensure that they applied to rule to everyone under 28, that they checked age at the door.

It would not be reasonable for bar staff to check the age of everyone each time a drink was ordered and because in most bars, people order drinks in groups, then to apply the over 28 rule properly every person under 28 would have to be watched at all time to ensure they did not drink alcohol at any stage. As this is not reasonable, refusing entry to the premises is the most appropriate way of ensuring the age limit is applied.

You're talking about a purposive approach, and you're absolutely correct that Judges apply this interpretation, however in this situation a literal approach would be applied as the statute is so clear.

Would be interesting if anyone knows any cases on point.

delahuntv

Littlehorny wrote: »

I thought a pub, being a public house could not set an age limit, so as long as you can prove you are over 18 you cannot be stopped entering. But a night club can class itself as a private club in the eyes of the law and so is free to enforce an age limit if it sees fit.

Nope - that was the case for a while before an amendment to the staute was brought in.

Nightclubs and Pubs are both classified as "Licenced premises" - a private club is exactly that, a private club and you would need to become a member. e.g. some casinos and yes, some private nightclubs who don't open to the public.
You may be showing your age (like me) and be remembering the heyday of Leeson street and places like LeCirque in Ballsbridge - some operated as private clubs, others as "restaurants". And once there was no hassle, a blind eye was turned. (ah for the good old days of £30 cordoniu and 4 glasses at 5 in the morning - the cheapskates went for black tower or blue nun at £20)

Basically if you look at reality away from the legal stuff, does someone in their thirties want to listen to the same music as someone who is 18. Likewise, someone who is 18 will want to be surrounded by people in their thirties?

It allows for pubs/clubs to decide on the market they wish to target on age grounds only and once they apply the limit to all people, then its allowed. They also have to display the policy in a clear manner.

Del2005

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I also disagree with your assesment, bar staff should be as diligently enforcing an age policy as the door staff.

Why have a dog and bark yourself, the pub employs door staff to vet potential customers so the bar staff can serve more efficiently. Having all staff checking ID is getting a bit like some bars in the USA.

MarkAnthony

Del2005 wrote: »

Why have a dog and bark yourself, the pub employs door staff to vet potential customers so the bar staff can serve more efficiently. Having all staff checking ID is getting a bit like some bars in the USA.

/sigh...

Is anyone going to engage in the legal side of this?

If a barman serves someone who is underage there is no get out for 'we had some people on the door'.

Del2005

MarkAnthony wrote: »

/sigh...

Is anyone going to engage in the legal side of this?

If a barman serves someone who is underage there is no get out for 'we had some people on the door'.

This thread is about refusing people over 18 entry to the bar not allowing underage drinkers alcohol. Of course a bar person should challenge someone they think is underage, but if a bar has an 28's policy the bar people won't be ID'ing people.

MarkAnthony

Del2005 wrote: »

This thread is about refusing people over 18 entry to the bar not allowing underage drinkers alcohol. Of course a bar person should challenge someone they think is underage, but if a bar has an 28's policy the bar people won't be ID'ing people.

They will be unless you/someone can find the relevant legislation. The position we've arrived at so far is they can be refused service but not entry on the grounds of age.

Intifada

Out of interest, what is the difference legally between saying no Under 21s and No Blacks? I imagine you wouldn't get away with the second one, but plenty of places do with the first.

MarkAnthony

delahuntv wrote: »

Basically if you look at reality away from the legal stuff, does someone in their thirties want to listen to the same music as someone who is 18. Likewise, someone who is 18 will want to be surrounded by people in their thirties?

It allows for pubs/clubs to decide on the market they wish to target on age grounds only and once they apply the limit to all people, then its allowed. They also have to display the policy in a clear manner.

The problem there is that do a certain sections of white people want blacks in the bar? Do a certain section of men want women in the bar? Maybe I'm a christian bar keep that wants to exclude someone on the grounds they are gay?

One can allow people to vote with their feet by playing decent music and catering to the over 30s but simply not letting them in the door because of their age, personally I don't actually have an issue with it, it's apples and oranges as far as I'm concerned in relation to the above examples, but legally I'm not so sure anymore.

MarkAnthony

Intifada wrote: »

Out of interest, what is the difference legally between saying no Under 21s and No Blacks? I imagine you wouldn't get away with the second one, but plenty of places do with the first.

There is a section relating to under 21s (but over 18s) having to provide ID. I was wondering if that was used somehow.

Intifada

MarkAnthony wrote: »

There is a section relating to under 21s (but over 18s) having to provide ID. I was wondering if that was used somehow.

That's fair enough, although it's a pretty stupid rule anyway because a bouncer could ask a 30 year old for ID and claim they thought they "looked under 21".

In fact I suppose there is a catch all excuse there for them, as they can simply say they felt the person was intoxicated at point of entry so refused them. At the end of the day nobody is ever going to take the word of somebody out enjoying themselves over a bouncer.

MarkAnthony

Intifada wrote: »

That's fair enough, although it's a pretty stupid rule anyway because a bouncer could ask a 30 year old for ID and claim they thought they "looked under 21".

In fact I suppose there is a catch all excuse there for them, as they can simply say they felt the person was intoxicated at point of entry so refused them. At the end of the day nobody is ever going to take the word of somebody out enjoying themselves over a bouncer.

Very good point

robman60

So by the statute it appears you can refuse service to over 18s but you can't necessarily refuse them entry. What then about venues "reserving the right to refuse admission". I'm presuming that doesn't cover refusal on the basis of age as that would be deemed discriminatory.

I feel the above poster is right in that ultimately any action would be destined to fail as it's a bouncer's word against a reveler's.