Is this age discrimination?

jty0yt

So there's a hotel/spa/restaurant near my home and it's known that if you're under 18 you won't be allowed in, they also ask this at the gate.
Now I presume that they don't have a club license so therefore they can't refuse entry if you're under 18, that would be age discrimination right?

CPTM

Isn't it their property and so their right to allow whoever they want onto it?

jty0yt

CPTM wrote: »

Isn't it their property and so their right to allow whoever they want onto it?

That's true but the law states that you can do that as long as you aren't discriminating against them, I.E not letting them in because of their age/sex/religion

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

If they have. good reason to discriminate, its legal - most likely the activities are not open to minors. But this is simple age-restricton, not discrimination. Cinemas are required to do it for certain movies, as are pubs at certain times.

njs030

jty0yt wrote: »

That's true but the law states that you can do that as long as you aren't discriminating against them, I.E not letting them in because of their age/sex/religion

This is one of those laws you've been told isn't it?
On private property it's up to the owner to decide who is welcome for whatever reason he/she decides is warranted.

Quazzie

jty0yt wrote: »

That's true but the law states that you can do that as long as you aren't discriminating against them, I.E not letting them in because of their age/sex/religion

Can you quote which law this is so I can show it to the people who stop me walking into the ladies showers at my local gym.

Winterlong

You are trying to argue that all 'no children allowed' rules are age discriminatory?

jty0yt

Turns out Section 3 Subsection 3 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 states "Treating a person who has not attained the age of 18 years less favourably or more favourably than another, whatever that other person's age, shall not be regarded as discrimination on the age ground."

So you can discriminate based on age if one is under 18.. thats odd.

jty0yt

Winterlong wrote: »

You are trying to argue that all 'no children allowed' rules are age discriminatory?

Yes I was 😂 I'm over 18 myself but I just wanted to find out more about it

nhunter100

jty0yt wrote:

So you can discriminate based on age if one is under 18.. thats odd.

If alcohol is served on the premises you can refuse entry to under 18's.

Peregrinus

Actually, jty0yt is correct, up to a point. The law in question is the Equal Status Act.

Under section 5 of the act "a person shall not discriminate in disposing of goods to the public generally or a section of the public or in providing a service . . .". So if you're running a hotel, for example, that's the provision of a service and you may not discriminate. "Discrimination" happens where one person is treated less favourably than another person on the grounds of gender, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race or membership of the traveller community. So if you admit the person who is over 18 while turning away the person who is under 18, your treating the second person less favourably than the first on the grounds of age; that's discrimination.

But. (There's always a but.)

While the Act does lay down a general rule that you may not discriminate in the providing goods or services, it also creates many, many exceptions - circumstances where discrimination, or particular kinds of discrimination, are permitted. One of the exceptions (set out in section 3(3)) says that affording less favourable treatment to people on the grounds that they are under 18 is not unlawful. Another, in section 5(g), allows the provision of separate toilet, changing facilities etc to people of different genders.

njs030

jty0yt wrote: »

Turns out Section 3 Subsection 3 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 states "Treating a person who has not attained the age of 18 years less favourably or more favourably than another, whatever that other person's age, shall not be regarded as discrimination on the age ground."

So you can discriminate based on age if one is under 18.. thats odd.

Why do you think it's odd? Most people would find it more odd if children were allowed the same entry rights as adults given their lack of understanding and safety concern.

jty0yt

notjustsweet wrote: »

Why do you think it's odd? Most people would find it more odd if children were allowed the same entry rights as adults given their lack of understanding and safety concern.

Its the premise that just because you're x age that you can be discriminated against. The law says you can be so that's the way it is. I know it may seem petty but I just wanted to know

Delacent

jty0yt wrote: »

Yes I was 😂 I'm over 18 myself but I just wanted to find out more about it

Someone under 18 is a child.

They cannot be held responsible for many things and the duty of care for allowing unaccompanied children is quite substantial.

Separately, for licenced premises (maybe others too) they may set an age limit and refuse entry to anyone under that set limit as long as they apply it to all people. So a pub can have an age limit of 35 and legally not allow someone under 35 on the premises, but it must apply equally to all people, so no-one under 35 could be admitted in that case.

stevek93

What would a minor be doing at a hotel/spa

jty0yt

stevek93 wrote: »

What would a minor be doing at a hotel/spa

They could be getting a facial!!

stevek93

jty0yt wrote: »

They could be getting a facial!!

Ehhh Ok.. Go elsewhere maybe?

njs030

jty0yt wrote: »

Its the premise that just because you're x age that you can be discriminated against. The law says you can be so that's the way it is. I know it may seem petty but I just wanted to know

You're missing the point though op. It's not about x age it's because under 18s are children, not legally allowed to drink and the premises sell alcohol. They've obviously decided not to let anyone in at all rather than relying on bar staff to check ID.
Perfectly legal and protecting their licence.

It's quite important you see the whole story rather than homing in on what you see as discrimination as it makes sense when you look at it fully.

AndrewJRenko

notjustsweet wrote: »

On private property it's up to the owner to decide who is welcome for whatever reason he/she decides is warranted.

That's not true.

Sleeper12

jty0yt wrote:

That's true but the law states that you can do that as long as you aren't discriminating against them, I.E not letting them in because of their age/sex/religion

Have you ever been to a teen dance /Disco? There always an age limit. Must be 12 or 14 or 16 etc. Facebook I think the limit is 12. Cinema, leisure centres. None of this is discrimination. It's a major selling point to some adults knowing that children won't be allowed in.

njs030

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's not true.

Erm....the thread shows it is? In terms of the ops question of age.
Did you just jump on my post rather than read further....oh dear.

AndrewJRenko

notjustsweet wrote: »

Erm....the thread shows it is?

Erm, the Equal Status Acts kinda trump the thread;

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/blind-nun-wins-discrimination-case-against-pub-1.1185227

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/travellers-awarded-4500-in-pub-discrimination-case-26037919.html

njs030

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Erm, the Equal Status Acts kinda trump the thread;

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/blind-nun-wins-discrimination-case-against-pub-1.1185227

http://www.thejournal.ie/travellers-jd-wetherspoon-london-2110143-May2015/

Read the thread. All of it.

jty0yt

The question was answered a while back by myself (the OP) haha. I didn't read the equality act fully and it does state that age based discrimination doesn't apply to unde 18's

nhunter100

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Erm, the Equal Status Acts kinda trump the thread;

Erm... if alcohol is served on a premises, said operators have a right to refuse entry to under 18's. Not discrimination it's actually child protection.

AndrewJRenko

notjustsweet wrote: »

Erm....the thread shows it is? In terms of the ops question of age.
Did you just jump on my post rather than read further....oh dear.

The OPs question of age is not the point that I responded to.

Did you just jump on my post rather than read further? Oh dear....

Delacent

jty0yt wrote: »

So there's a hotel/spa/restaurant near my home and it's known that if you're under 18 you won't be allowed in, they also ask this at the gate.
Now I presume that they don't have a club license so therefore they can't refuse entry if you're under 18, that would be age discrimination right?

What's a "club" licence?

If they sell alcohol for consumption on the premises, then they have a licence to sell and serve alcohol for consumption on the premises.

Please don't suggest that because they don't have a night club that a different "licence" with different rules applies. The license is the same, only difference is clubs apply for an extension to the serving time of their licence, but it does not change any of the key regulations of the licence.

Sleeper12

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Erm, the Equal Status Acts kinda trump the thread;

None of the links have anything to do with children?
Did I miss something?

AndrewJRenko

Sleeper12 wrote: »

None of the links have anything to do with children?
Did I miss something?

Yes, you missed the point. Read the post that I pointed out was not true - which also has nothing to do with the age of children.

nhunter100

AndrewJRenko wrote:

The OPs question of age is not the point that I responded to.

You didn't respond to anything, you just said 'thats not true' without offering an explanation as to what was not true.

Sleeper12

Ops question is about age yet everyone seems to be talking about discrimination of adults

AndrewJRenko

nhunter100 wrote: »

You didn't respond to anything, you just said 'thats not true' without offering an explanation as to what was not true.

I said 'That's not true' in response to this sentance, which I quoted in the post where I said 'That's not true'. You'll see it just above where I said 'That's not true'.

On private property it's up to the owner to decide who is welcome for whatever reason he/she decides is warranted.

nhunter100

AndrewJRenko wrote:

I said 'That's not true' in response to this sentance, which I quoted in the post where I said 'That's not true'. You'll see it just above where I said 'That's not true'.

So what's not true?

AndrewJRenko

nhunter100 wrote: »

So what's not true?

Really? Again?

Here's the bit that's not true;

On private property it's up to the owner to decide who is welcome for whatever reason he/she decides is warranted.

nhunter100

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Here's the bit that's not true;

So a private girls school cannot stop males from entering the grounds? Just as an example.

AndrewJRenko

nhunter100 wrote: »

So a private girls school cannot stop males from entering the grounds? Just as an example.

You did read the links, right? And you saw how the Courts have upheld decisions to confirm that private property owners cannot refuse people for whatever reason they decide is warranted?

Private properties cannot discriminate on ground of gender, religion, sexual orientation, disability or other grounds. They cannot discriminate on age, though there is an exception for over 18 rules. It would be illegal for a pub to have an 'over 25s' rule, though these used to be common at one stage.

And as for your example, what are the school going to do when Dad comes to pick up his daughter? Or when the courier has a package to deliver?

nhunter100

AndrewJRenko wrote:

And as for your example, what are the school going to do when Dad comes to pick up his daughter? Or when the courier has a package to deliver?

Waiting area, sorted. Anyway the thread was about denying access to under 18's. The OP's question was answered correctly. Going to finish watching the Rugby. Irish playing brilliantly. Have a good one.

AndrewJRenko

nhunter100 wrote: »

Waiting area, sorted. Anyway the thread was about denying access to under 18's. The OP's question was answered correctly. Going to finish watching the Rugby. Irish playing brilliantly. Have a good one.

A waiting area outside their own grounds? How would that work?

Enjoy the match.

Delacent

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It would be illegal for a pub to have an 'over 25s' rule, though these used to be common at one stage

A licenced premises may refuse entry on any age once that policy is clearly advertised and applied to all people.

GerardKeating

notjustsweet wrote: »

This is one of those laws you've been told isn't it?
On private property it's up to the owner to decide who is welcome for whatever reason he/she decides is warranted.

No it is not, the Equal Status Acts would prevent exclusion based on certain catagories, for example, a Pub could ban people with brown eyes, but not with brown skin...

nhunter100 wrote: »

So a private girls school cannot stop males from entering the grounds? Just as an example.

They could limit access to parents of children attending the school

AndrewJRenko

Delacent wrote: »

A licenced premises may refuse entry on any age once that policy is clearly advertised and applied to all people.

Have the rules changed since 2003?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/0425/37618-equality/

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/licensed-trade-most-critical-of-new-measures-1.1062332

AndrewJRenko

GerardKeating wrote: »

They could limit access to parents of children attending the school

So they wouldn't be stopping males then, just stopping non-parents?

Sounds like a bit of a difficult policy to implement. What about Board members, guest lecturers, NEPS psychologies, NCSE SENOs, sales people for school book companies, the bloke who changes the bulbs on the interactive whiteboards?

testicles

This post has been deleted.

Delacent

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have the rules changed since 2003?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/0425/37618-equality/

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/licensed-trade-most-critical-of-new-measures-1.1062332

Yes they have

AndrewJRenko

Delacent wrote: »

Yes they have

Would you have any source or reference for the current rules please?

Delacent

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Would you have any source or reference for the current rules please?

Google it. The amendment was made in 2005.

Put it this way, a large number of licenced premises have large signs in open view with their age restrictions.

Considering the number of litigant people out there, if such sign or policy was illegal, it would be an atm for litigants.

AndrewJRenko

Delacent wrote: »

Google it. The amendment was made in 2005.

Put it this way, a large number of licenced premises have large signs in open view with their age restrictions.

Considering the number of litigant people out there, if such sign or policy was illegal, it would be an atm for litigants.

I've been looking for it yesterday and today without success. I can't find anything on Licensed Vitners or the IHREC site or with some Google searching.

testicles

This post has been deleted.

Delacent

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I've been looking for it yesterday and today without success. I can't find anything on Licensed Vitners or the IHREC site or with some Google searching.

You haven't looked hard enough, here's the PRECISE wording

25.— Section 15 of the Equal Status Act 2000 is amended by the addition of the following subsections:

“(3) (a) This subsection applies to the option given under subsection (2), (3) or (4) of section 34 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 1988 to the holder of a licence of any licensed premises to allow a person under 18 to be in the bar of those premises at the times, or in the circumstances, specified in those subsections.

(b) The non-exercise of the option to which this subsection applies shall not of itself constitute discrimination.

(c) The reference in paragraph (a) to section 34 is to that section as substituted by section 14 of the 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

AndrewJRenko

Delacent wrote: »

You haven't looked hard enough, here's the PRECISE wording

25.— Section 15 of the Equal Status Act 2000 is amended by the addition of the following subsections:

“(3) (a) This subsection applies to the option given under subsection (2), (3) or (4) of section 34 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 1988 to the holder of a licence of any licensed premises to allow a person under 18 to be in the bar of those premises at the times, or in the circumstances, specified in those subsections.

(b) The non-exercise of the option to which this subsection applies shall not of itself constitute discrimination.

(c) The reference in paragraph (a) to section 34 is to that section as substituted by section 14 of the 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

Thanks - very helpful. I've bolded the key point for reference for others.

What particular Act is that from?

Delacent

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Thanks - very helpful. I've bolded the key point for reference for others.

What particular Act is that from?

Are you just taking the piss? - The very first lines give it to you.

25.— Section 15 of the Equal Status Act 2000 is amended by the addition of the following subsections: