Dublin Bus ordered to pay passenger €7,500 over alleged homophobic slurs...

Quantum Erasure

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/dublin-bus-ordered-to-pay-passenger-e7500-over-alleged-homophobic-slurs-1068380.html

The passenger alleged that the bus driver called him a ‘f**got’ ‘go on you queer’ and ‘schizo’ on different occasions in 2017 and 2018.

Dublin Bus told the hearing the passenger’s complaints were investigated but it was deemed that no disciplinary action should be taken against the driver.

It denied that the slurs against the passenger were used, but did say that relations between the driver and passenger became confrontational. Dublin Bus alleged that around November-December 2017, the complainant who was a regular passenger on a specific route was repeatedly paying the wrong fare for the journeys he was taking.

The company said the dispute about fares escalated quickly and there were several arguments between the driver and the passenger. It did not deny that on at least one occasion the driver did not stop the bus when he saw the passenger at the bus stop,

In a statement issued through his solicitors, the complainant said he was hugely disappointed “that I was forced to take this course of action” and that what occurred “had a huge impact on my life and my mental health. I was treated differently because I am gay,"

His solicitor Mary Golden said: “We hope that this decision will influence future behaviour and show that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, disability and all the nine protected grounds are unacceptable in modern Ireland and that this type of behaviour will not be tolerated.”

Treated differently because he's gay though...?

Ridiculous award. Court appeal will overturn it and I'm sorry amazed that this crowd felt no need to wait until after a criminal investigation was concluded. Interesting

Meh, it's a bit skimpy on the details.

Cookie_Monster

Sounds like he was treated differently for being a scumbag fare dodger, rather than being gay tbh

Peregrinus

The key sentence in the report that explains what went on here is buried about six paragraphs from the bottom of the story:

"The bus driver did not attend the WRC hearing."

So, at the hearing, the WRC has evidence (from the passenger) that the bus driver had used homophobic terms of abuse. And (it seems from what is in the report) that evidence was uncontradicted. "Dublin Bus denied that those terms were used", but if they backed up the denial with any evidence from anyone who was present on any of the occasions, the report does not mention it.

Faced with uncontradicted evidence, a tribunal is only going to make one finding. The passenger may have been a fare dodger, belligerent or whatever, but none of that would entitle anyone to call him a ******, a queer or a schizo.

Dublin Bus can appeal to the Circuit Court, and the appeal is by way of full rehearing of the issue. So they can appeal, call the driver as a witness and get him to give the evidence they should have got him to give at the WRC hearing.

ILoveYourVibes

Good Im glad he got the money.

Sick of idiots thinking they can abuse people.

Quantum Erasure

Like yer man waiting for the driver to finish his shift so he can harass him, shout at him, while recording it all on his phone to stick up on instagram for his 75,000 followers...?

davetherave

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Good Im glad he got the money.

Sick of idiots thinking they can abuse people.

What about the Garda investigation that is still underway though?

biko

The bus company said the passenger has 75,000 followers on his Instagram account and one of the videos posted online was of the driver finishing his shift at Talbot Street while the passenger stands on the pavement, shouting commentary about the driver to passers-by and intending passengers.

Dublin Bus said the driver felt threatened by the passenger videoing him and went on sick leave for three months.

This is harassment of the driver.
Now they both seem to have cases against each other, but only one uploaded evidence to the internet.

JasonStatham

They should make the bus touch on touch off. Card only.

Bobblehats

biko wrote: »

This is harassment of the driver.
Now they both seem to have cases against each other, but only one uploaded evidence to the internet.

Man, what a diva.

Nermal

Between this and the Starbucks case - we have clearly taken a wrong turn in the application of vicarious liability here.

How on earth is it the fault of Dublin Bus or Starbucks if their employees make a balls of dealing with the public?

The legal industry is adept at assigning guilt to the party with the deepest pockets, whether it represents justice or not.

TomTomTim

Nermal wrote: »

Between this and the Starbucks case - we have clearly taken a wrong turn in the application of vicarious liability here.

How on earth is it the fault of Dublin Bus or Starbucks if their employees make a balls of dealing with the public?

It's very odd, especially when you consider how many judges in Ireland are well aware of the concept of "opening the flood gates".

I do remember a case I read about in college, where the government were sued due to someone who was employed by the state sexual assaulting a child or something similar. At the time the state were made liable purely so the child in question could get some compensation, the general views was that they would not be liable in other circumstances, as it would be unfair.

GreeBo

Nermal wrote: »

Between this and the Starbucks case - we have clearly taken a wrong turn in the application of vicarious liability here.

How on earth is it the fault of Dublin Bus or Starbucks if their employees make a balls of dealing with the public?

The legal industry is adept at assigning guilt to the party with the deepest pockets, whether it represents justice or not.

Thats the same in every walk of life though, the buck stops at the top.

The fact that the driver on at least one occasion didnt stop because this person was at the stop is pretty indefensible tbh.

Etc

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Good Im glad he got the money.

Sick of idiots thinking they can abuse people.

Troll............

Peregrinus

Nermal wrote: »

Between this and the Starbucks case - we have clearly taken a wrong turn in the application of vicarious liability here.

How on earth is it the fault of Dublin Bus or Starbucks if their employees make a balls of dealing with the public?

The employher puts the employee in the position where he can abuse the public. The employer profits from the employee being in that position. Basically, the rationale for vicarious liablity is that the employer creates the risk of abusive behaviour for his own profit, and the onus is on him to prevent the abusive behaviour and to compensate those who suffer if he does not. If this weren't the rule, then employers would have an incentive to create these risks, but also an incentive to save money by not managing them, and letting others bear the downside.

fantaiscool

If you are having a dispute with someone who is gay, you make your points as well as you can and explain your position. If you think he is actively paying the wrong fare, you have the ability to ensure that he pays the correct fare before you drive the bus. You do not resort to homophobic slurs. Once you resort to that, all gloves are off and I'm happy to hear that the gay individual was able to stand up for himself and get a result.

Padraig Mor

fantaiscool wrote: »

You do not resort to homophobic slurs. Once you resort to that, all gloves are off and I'm happy to hear that the gay individual was able to stand up for himself and get a result.

I guess you missed the bit where Dublin Bus denied that the slurs were made?

jam_mac_jam

Yeah you can't call your customers ******s. I would have thought that was obvious.

Whatever the situation is. Just no.

ohnonotgmail

Padraig Mor wrote: »

I guess you missed the bit where Dublin Bus denied that the slurs were made?

the only person who could deny them was the driver and he didn't give evidence.

fantaiscool

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Yeah you can't call your customers ******s. I would have thought that was obvious.

Whatever the situation is. Just no.

Agreed. I had quite a dispute with a gay guy in a house I used to live in and the thought of using a homophobic slur just never entered my mind. He actively went out of his way to cause trouble, even throwing my food out from the fridge, very very immature stuff. Since being gay is probably genetic and there is absolutely nothing wrong with being gay it would just never come into my mind to call someone a homophobic slur. You have to have a problem with gay people to even think of doing that. Glad he got the 7.5k and hopefully the driver learned a lesson. I'm sure the higher ups will be letting the driver know that he's cost the company 7.5k.

doublejobbing 2

The fact this lad has 75,000 Instagram followers says a lot to me about what sort of contribution to society he is making, above anything else.

nullzero

This is the second judgment from the WRC to make the news this week.

It seems like the defendants are at a serious disadvantage with these type of cases as they tend to be taken for the actions of front line workers who aren't in the habit of recording things correctly and by the time they are aware a case is being taken everything is so muddled in their minds they don't stand a chance.

I must take a case through the WRC the next time someone serving me gets snotty. I could say anything happened and they wouldn't be able to defend themselves against it. Nice way to make a few grand.

KevRossi

So he'd have no issue with the driver suing him now? I mean, he posted a video online where he abuses the driver in public, so it seems to me that he has good grounds.

Being a Dublin Bus driver isn't easy, though it can be an average service a lot of the time. Driver needed to be more professional and get management involved if a passenger is constantly being difficult.

The guy who got the €7,500 sounds like a right tosser anyway.

Hurrache

Padraig Mor wrote: »

I guess you missed the bit where Dublin Bus denied that the slurs were made?

They denied it, but provided no evidence at all for that denial. Are you saying that if you're in court for assault, deny you done it, that's done and dusted so?

Whatever the background to the dispute is, the route of the verbals the driver took was as dumb as **** and opened him and the company he was representing wide open for such award.

nullzero wrote: »

I must take a case through the WRC the next time someone serving me gets snotty. I could say anything happened and they wouldn't be able to defend themselves against it. Nice way to make a few grand.

You won't, you'll lose and pay expenses for a trivial case. Neither of the 2 awards were made on the basis of someone being snotty. It's amazing that people can't see that.

ILoveYourVibes

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Good Im glad he got the money.

Sick of IDIOTS thinking they can abuse people.

LOL.

nullzero

Hurrache wrote: »

They denied it, but provided no evidence at all for that denial. Are you saying that if you're in court for assault, deny you done it, that's done and dusted so?

Whatever the background to the dispute is, the route of the verbals the driver too was as dumb as **** and opened him and the company he was representing wide open for such award.



You won't, you'll lose and pay expenses for a trivial case. Neither of the 2 awards were made on the basis of someone being snotty. It's amazing that people can't see that.

Waffle.

The two cases that made the news from the WRC this week featured front line staff who didn't have the wherewithal to record their interactions with the plaintiffs correctly, thusly they could not effectly deny the accusations made against them.

Do you realise how important having your ducks in a row as a defendant is in a court setting? In both cases this week it was clear the front line staff weren't prepared for this eventuality. You can rest assured staff in both organisations will be drilled on how to deal with that type of situation going forward.

These type of cases will become more common place as a result of these two rulings this week.

Eventually this loophole will have to close.

Nermal

Peregrinus wrote: »

Basically, the rationale for vicarious liablity is that the employer creates the risk of abusive behaviour for his own profit, and the onus is on him to prevent the abusive behaviour and to compensate those who suffer if he does not.

LOL. Thin stuff. We know the real rationale: bus drivers won't have €7,500 lying around, but DB head office do.

Skyfloater

Nermal wrote: »

LOL. Thin stuff. We know the real rationale: bus drivers won't have €7,500 lying around, but DB head office do.

What were Dublin Bus or Starbucks for that matter, supposed to do here though? The implication is that every front line employee should be literally shadowed by a supervisor whose sole task is to make sure that the FLE doesn't offend anyone. Is that what you are implying Peruginus(sic)?

Hurrache

nullzero wrote: »

The two cases that made the news from the WRC this week featured front line staff who didn't have the wherewithal to record their interactions with the plaintiffs correctly, thusly they could not effectly deny the accusations made against them.

Well you certainly can't deny accusations made against you if you don't turn up to do so, something any right minded individual would do if falsely accused of anything.

nullzero wrote: »

You can rest assured staff in both organisations will be drilled on how to deal with that type of situation going forward.

You actually think they haven't been given training already in this? Jesus, when I worked one of this jobs 25 years ago, and I wouldn't have called it 'frontline', I even knew not to do something as stupid as in either of these cases, and there was customer service training then.

Skyfloater wrote: »

What were Dublin Bus or Starbucks for that matter, supposed to do here though? The implication is that every front line employee should be literally shadowed by a supervisor whose sole task is to make sure that the FLE doesn't offend anyone. Is that what you are implying Peruginus(sic)?

If you get food poisoning in a restaurant, or buy gone off food in a store, responsibility to the customer doesn't fall on the shoulders of the person that served you the food, or that left the food on the shelf when they shouldn't have, it's lays on the business.

ohnonotgmail

nullzero wrote: »

This is the second judgment from the WRC to make the news this week.

It seems like the defendants are at a serious disadvantage with these type of cases as they tend to be taken for the actions of front line workers who aren't in the habit of recording things correctly and by the time they are aware a case is being taken everything is so muddled in their minds they don't stand a chance.

I must take a case through the WRC the next time someone serving me gets snotty. I could say anything happened and they wouldn't be able to defend themselves against it. Nice way to make a few grand.

The bus driver didnt turn up to give evidence. If evidence is only presented from one side what is the WRC to do?