Traveller bride-to-be awarded €15,000 after hotel found to have discriminated against

Fly_away

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/traveller-bride-to-be-awarded-15000-after-hotel-found-to-have-discriminated-against-her-40005977.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=seeding&fbclid=IwAR0YIRq0iKW199aRDhlAscslUSNmYq_paIX9U240aDAGnPUa1AsvzE5zmoo

I don't blame the hotel at all. Multiple travellers steamed within an enclosed environment after a piss up would be quite capable and maybe even likely to cause more than €15000 worth of damages.

I think the judge made a mistake. And we as a society are making a mistake by allowing these judgements to pass without serious reflection as to the reality of the situation the hotel found itself in. If I had allowed such an event to take place, I don't think I could feel I was doing my job properly given the major risk of damages. It would certainly have me on edge. I don't feel the judgement gave due consideration to this reality. In fact, it cast it aside and ignored it - pretending it doesn't exist. And that is a complete nonsense.

I don't think this is a controversial, unreasonable or discriminatory thing to say, it is based on my learned experience of having interacting with the travelling community. These are real anxieties and shouldn't be dismissed.

Will_I_Regret

They still ended up saving themselves money IMO.

colm_mcm

It’s not really the judges fault, as they’re upholding the special recognition the travelling community have as a separate ethnicity.

cgcsb

Lucky feckers. I wish someone would discriminate against me. Well worth it for the hotel though, they could have paid that amount in re-carpeting alone.

Renault 5

The hotel are fully to blame for this.

Not because they refused the wedding. It’s because they made it so obvious why they were refusing.

Their are hundreds of excuses they could have used but chose to dig themselves into a hole.

seamus

Pretty sh1t situation for everyone involved. It's obviously illegal discrimination; you can't deny service to this individual because you've had or heard of issues with other Traveller weddings in the past. She shouldn't have to pay for the sins of other Travellers.

Most traveller weddings take place without ending in slashhooks or major vandalism. We just tend to hear about the ones that go bad.

Nevertheless, one can understand that a hotelier won't want to expose their hotel or staff to the extra risk.

But it's fairly open and shut tbh.

ELM327

Hotel made the right decision except for making the reason too obvious.
Even so, I think the 15k was a saving on the potential damage caused.

Renault 5

ELM327 wrote: »

Hotel made the right decision except for making the reason too obvious.
Even so, I think the 15k was a saving on the potential damage caused.

They may have just opened the flood gates.

I don’t know how they will be able to deflect future booking now.

pwurple

Fly_away wrote: »

I don't think this is a controversial, unreasonable or discriminatory thing to say, it is based on my learned experience of having interacting with the travelling community. These are real anxieties and shouldn't be dismissed.

Maybe think a little longer about what discrimination means. This is a pretty clear case of prejudicial discrimination

This woman was treated differently because of who she was, what her name is, what she wears / looks like. She was Pre-Judged and treated differently because of that. She hadn't done anything damaging. She was inquiring about a booking.


At least be honest about it. Whether you agree with it or not, it's obviously discrimination.

ELM327

They made the mistake of just blanking her and the commission.

Now they need to engage and simply continue replying and come up with another reason to not hold it. Price them out, close the hotel temporarily (still a saving over the carnage caused at these events, and also on the 15k), something.

But you cannot be seen to do it

jiltloop

The hotel also didn't help their cause by not turning up at the hearing, they made no case whatsoever giving the judge no option really.

dinneenp

Why isn't the hotel's name published?

Fly_away

seamus wrote: »

Pretty sh1t situation for everyone involved. It's obviously illegal discrimination; you can't deny service to this individual because you've had or heard of issues with other Traveller weddings in the past. She shouldn't have to pay for the sins of other Travellers.

Most traveller weddings take place without ending in slashhooks or major vandalism. We just tend to hear about the ones that go bad.

Nevertheless, one can understand that a hotelier won't want to expose their hotel or staff to the extra risk.

But it's fairly open and shut tbh.

I understand what you're saying, but it surely cannot be right that the state's laws does not recognise the extra risk that the hotel would have taken on here? If we keep ignoring this issue and pretending it doesn't exist how can we hope to improve the relationship between the travelling community and the rest of society?

Equality and respect is a two way street but unfortunately it doesn't always feel that way when the travelling community are involved.

It appears based on that report that once she spoke her surname that guilt of the defendant was decided. That is a very low bar to set for proof of discrimination.
"In conclusion, WRC adjudicator Ray Flaherty ruled: ”The evidence clearly shows that the disengagement coincided with (the coordinator) being made aware of the complainant’s surname on the morning of 21 July 2019, some hours in advance of the complainant’s attendance at the wedding showcase.”"

Maybe the Hotel discriminated, maybe not, but that is the rule of thumb that will be applied when considering future cases for every company offering services and product to the public.

dmn22

Bit of a separate point, but I always wonder whenever you see rental property and the landlord is looking for females only.. if this traveller case is discrimination, is this common practice not discrimination also?

growleaves

Pre-crime

Kaybaykwah

dinneenp wrote: »

Why isn't the hotel's name published?

Traveller's Inn?

Fly_away

Fly_away wrote: »

I understand what you're saying, but it surely cannot be right that the state's laws does not recognise the extra risk that the hotel would have taken on here? If we keep ignoring this issue and pretending it doesn't exist how can we hope to improve the relationship between the travelling community and the rest of society?

Equality and respect is a two way street but unfortunately it doesn't always feel that way when the travelling community are involved.

you clearly do not even know when you yourself are being discriminatory, not much chance you can see it when a hotel does it.

Zookey123

colm_mcm wrote: »

It’s not really the judges fault, as they’re upholding the special recognition the travelling community have as a separate ethnicity.

Its more a cultural thing with travellers. I don't think they jell well with others. I have met a lot of travellers (very common from were I grew up) and not one of them was pleasant. I do have sympathy for the hotel as the probability of the traveller community causing trouble is very high. Does that justify discrimination? Probably not and I would say they prefer paying the 15 Grand than having to deal with that. I do feel sorry for the sound travellers though (I would probably leave that community if I was them).

seamus

Fly_away wrote: »

I understand what you're saying, but it surely cannot be right that the state's laws does not recognise the extra risk that the hotel would have taken on here?

Stating that "travellers present an extra risk", is discrimination. It's a blanket prejudice against an individual based on their genetics or heritage. Replace "travellers" with "Jews" or "Irish" and you can see why the state has to defend minorities against discriminatory practices.

Whatever way you swing it, claiming that this young woman's family were a higher risk just because they're travellers, is discrimination. Past experiences or anecdotes may explain the reason that someone discriminates, but cannot justify it.

If this woman or her family had been involved in past issues at the hotel, then you've got a better basis. But otherwise she must be treated the same as anyone else who walks in off the street, and no more of a risk than them.

There's no end of stories of wealthy weddings resulting in holes in walls, toilets ripped off the walls, lines of coke being done on the bar and brawls on the dancefloor, but you'd never hear of a hotel turning down a wedding because the bride is from an RTE family in Dalkey.

Equality and respect is a two way street

You're right. And "You can't have a wedding here because Traveller weddings always end up wrecking the place" is neither respectful or egalitarian.

Invidious

Another hotel had to pay €3,500 last year for cancelling a Traveller wedding.

And yet this woman receives more than four times that amount?

Zookey123

seamus wrote: »

Stating that "travellers present an extra risk", is discrimination. It's a blanket prejudice against an individual based on their genetics or heritage. Replace "travellers" with "Jews" or "Irish" and you can see why the state has to defend minorities against discriminatory practices.

Whatever way you swing it, claiming that this young woman's family were a higher risk just because they're travellers, is discrimination. Past experiences or anecdotes may explain the reason that someone discriminates, but cannot justify it.

I think you have to have lived under a rock to not recognise the extra risk involved in dealing with the traveller community. You also have obviously never owned a small business having to deal with constant shop lifting from said community either. If 10 travellers walk into a restaurant and 9 of them cause hassle I personally wouldn't allow any in. Yes its not a very elegant solution but better than the alternative.

Invidious

Invidious wrote: »

Another hotel had to pay €3,500 last year for cancelling a Traveller wedding.

And yet this woman receives more than four times that amount?

Different Adjudicator and it appears she suffers the misfortune of not having a readily identifiable Traveler surname.

Mrs OBumble

colm_mcm wrote: »

It’s not really the judges fault, as they’re upholding the special recognition the travelling community have as a separate ethnicity.

Nothing to do with ethnic recognition: discrimination against MOTC was illegal well before the ethnicity was recognised.

seamus

Invidious wrote: »

Another hotel had to pay €3,500 last year for cancelling a Traveller wedding.

And yet this woman receives more than four times that amount?

In that case, the hotel came up with some kind of excuse at least, where in this one the discrimination was more blatant.

Doesn't really fill in the gap between the two, but then compensation awards are largely discretionary.

Invidious

seamus wrote: »

Whatever way you swing it, claiming that this young woman's family were a higher risk just because they're travellers, is discrimination.

How do you know she's a young woman, Seamus?

The article does not state her age.

Or are you simply making assumptions based on typical patterns within the Traveller community, while complaining about others doing the same thing?

blanch152

The hotel didn't turn up to the adjudication so they were on a hiding to nothing, especially as the emails presented didn't put them in a good light.

McFly85

The hotel was being overtly discriminatory so can have no complaints.

But I would like to know, what is the process for hotels if there is serious damage done at an event? I would have assumed the persons booking the event would be liable, but if they cannot pay?

BrianBoru00

seamus wrote: »

Stating that "travellers present an extra risk", is discrimination. It's a blanket prejudice against an individual based on their genetics or heritage. Replace "travellers" with "Jews" or "Irish" and you can see why the state has to defend minorities against discriminatory practices.

Whatever way you swing it, claiming that this young woman's family were a higher risk just because they're travellers, is discrimination. Past experiences or anecdotes may explain the reason that someone discriminates, but cannot justify it.

If this woman or her family had been involved in past issues at the hotel, then you've got a better basis. But otherwise she must be treated the same as anyone else who walks in off the street, and no more of a risk than them.

That's fair enough. The problem is that it is the experience of the majority of hoteliers and publicans that travellers as a group are more likely to cause trouble - any town with a traveller funeral - all the pubs will be shut - is that discrimination?

And you're right about the need for protection. But what this will lead to inevitably is a damage deposit of €10000+ being required as well as the full cost up front from all weddings - pushing up the price of all weddings.

There's no end of stories of wealthy weddings resulting in holes in walls, toilets ripped off the walls, lines of coke being done on the bar and brawls on the dancefloor, but you'd never hear of a hotel turning down a wedding because the bride is from an RTE family in Dalkey.

You're right. And "You can't have a wedding here because Traveller weddings always end up wrecking the place" is neither respectful or egalitarian.

Thats a gross exageration - I've been to perhaps 100 weddings and never have I witnessed any damage - where lads are getting out of control their friends or neighbours normally calm them down and get them to cop on.

colm_mcm

Zookey123 wrote: »

Its more a cultural thing with travellers. I don't think they jell well with others. I have met a lot of travellers (very common from were I grew up) and not one of them was pleasant. I do have sympathy for the hotel as the probability of the traveller community causing trouble is very high. Does that justify discrimination? Probably not and I would say they prefer paying the 15 Grand than having to deal with that. I do feel sorry for the sound travellers though (I would probably leave that community if I was them).

No, my point is that their recognition as having special status with regards discrimination makes this sort of case very simple.

seamus

Invidious wrote: »

How do you know she's a young woman, Seamus?

The article does not state her age.

Or are you simply making assumptions based on typical patterns within the Traveller community, while complaining about others doing the same thing?

I'm making an assumption that a woman who's organising a wedding, is probably young, i.e. 30 or under.

:rolleyes:

beauf

seamus wrote: »

Stating that "travellers present an extra risk", is discrimination. It's a blanket prejudice against an individual based on their genetics or heritage. Replace "travellers" with "Jews" or "Irish" and you can see why the state has to defend minorities against discriminatory practices......

The solution as done by the insurance company is to put a price premium on everyone they can identify by age or sex, etc.

The equivalent for weddings would be to ask some crazy deposit, like 20k for everyone who wants to do a wedding. Hire a bunch of security staff for the night. Make it almost impossible for the entire country to have weddings and such events.

Or get out of the business. They its now impossible to insurance for somethings.

breezy1985

Zookey123 wrote: »

I think you have to have lived under a rock to not recognise the extra risk involved in dealing with the traveller community. You also have obviously never owned a small business having to deal with constant shop lifting from said community either. If 10 travellers walk into a restaurant and 9 of them cause hassle I personally wouldn't allow any in. Yes its not a very elegant solution but better than the alternative.

Yes but it is discrimination to not serve someone for being a traveller. If you bar all travellers from your shop because some or lots steal that is discrimination now I'm not saying you don't have your reasons or that I would do different to you but at least own it.

No one is pretending here that there are not problems with the traveller community but if the hotel or anywhere else had suspicion there would be trouble it has to be dealt with using a bit of tact. I worked in pubs for years and there are ways to deal with the drunk and unwanted in a premises without getting sued

Donald Trump

dmn22 wrote: »

Bit of a separate point, but I always wonder whenever you see rental property and the landlord is looking for females only.. if this traveller case is discrimination, is this common practice not discrimination also?

You can legally do that where there are other tenants in the house.

Invidious

seamus wrote: »

I'm making an assumption that a woman who's organising a wedding, is probably young, i.e. 30 or under.

:rolleyes:

You assume that a woman organizing a wedding is 30 or younger? It's news to me that women don't get married over 30.

It might surprise you that the average age of an Irish bride is now 34.8, according to the CSO.

seamus

McFly85 wrote: »

But I would like to know, what is the process for hotels if there is serious damage done at an event? I would have assumed the persons booking the event would be liable, but if they cannot pay?

The hotel's insurance would cover it. In general, the hotel is also the organiser of the event, which means any liability falls on their own shoulder.

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

That's fair enough. The problem is that it is the experience of the majority of hoteliers and publicans that travellers as a group are more likely to cause trouble - any town with a traveller funeral - all the pubs will be shut - is that discrimination?

It's illegal discrimination if they're closing, "Because it's Travellers".

If they're closing because, "It's the Smith family from down the road who are known for wrecking the place", then it's not illegal discrimination.

Tyrone212

Great news. The Starbucks settlement whingers were running out of things to say. This will keep yous going for the next couple of days until the next thing gets your knickers in twist. Enjoy!

irelandrover

seamus wrote: »

It's illegal discrimination if they're closing, "Because it's Travellers".

If they are closing then they are closing for everyone. How could it possibly be discrimination?

beauf

beauf wrote: »

The solution as done by the insurance company is to put a price premium on everyone they can identify by age or sex, etc.

The equivalent for weddings would be to ask some crazy deposit, like 20k for everyone who wants to do a wedding. Hire a bunch of security staff for the night. Make it almost impossible for the entire country to have weddings and such events.

Or get out of the business. They its now impossible to insurance for somethings.

What other business do most mid-market hotels have? Very few are serving tourists or business people in great numbers. Wedding receptions are where they earn their money.
High end hotels don't rely on this business. Low end hotels can serve direct provision or local housing authority. The mid-range hotels are stuck dependent on receptions.

Rodin

Discrimination is a one way street.

Discrimination was legalised when women-only jobs were created in academia.

Just to be clear sexist discrimination in this country is when a woman is discriminated against. That's it.

Discrimination when it suits them.

Incidentally Id have taken the booking but I wouldnt have allowed them pay in cash.

Renault 5

Invidious wrote: »

You assume that a woman organizing a wedding is 30 or younger? It's news to me that women don't get married over 30.

It might surprise you that the average age of an Irish bride is now 34.8, according to the CSO.

You are sadly mistaken if you think the average age of a Traveller bride is 34.8.

BattleCorp

Invidious wrote: »

Another hotel had to pay €3,500 last year for cancelling a Traveller wedding.

And yet this woman receives more than four times that amount?

I'd imagine the fact that the hotel didn't engage with the WRC played a part in that award.

Invidious

Renault 5 wrote: »

You are sadly mistaken if you think the average age of a Traveller bride is 34.8.

I don't.

My point is that Seamus assumes the woman is young, on the basis that she's a Traveller bride, even though the article does not state her age.

Ironically, Seamus himself illustrates how we all make assumptions about Travellers based on patterns typical in their community. The hotel's assumption that Travellers are more violent, anti-social, or disruptive is also based on long-established patterns, and there's plenty of evidence to back that up.

ELM327

A quite reasonable way of avoiding traveller weddings would be to have a no cash payment policy, all funds to be sent by cleared bank transfer.

pwurple

What are ye on about.... some sort of massive GOTCHA because a woman of marriage age is assumed to not be an old woman? Give over.

Seamus isn't saying he is free of all assumptions, he is saying this is CLEARLY discrimination. (Which it is)

All you're saying is that this discrimination is based in their learned bias. That isn't a disagreement, it's context.

tucker1971

ELM327 wrote: »

A quite reasonable way of avoiding traveller weddings would be to have a no cash payment policy, all funds to be sent by cleared bank transfer.

Excellent suggestion

TheBoyConor

ELM327 wrote: »

Hotel made the right decision except for making the reason too obvious.
Even so, I think the 15k was a saving on the potential damage caused.

What could they say?

1.Oh sorry, we are all booked up for the next 18 months.
2. Quote them an outrageously inflated price so they won't take it. If questioned, they could quote very large security and bouncer costs.

They were smart enough not to say something explicit like "oh sorry, we don't take traveller weddings" instead, they just opted for the silent treatment and ignore them, but they were not cute enough to give some other claim-proof fobb off.

What could they have said that would have them in the clear? I don't think there is anything easy. Whatever is said, and whatever reason given, anyone looking at the situation will obviously know it is because they didn't want to run the risk of a traveller wedding ransacking the hotel.
If they did allow it and the place was trashed, the manager who took the booking would get an absolute bollocking out of it and possibly let go. Even if it passed off peacefully, it would be bad for the hotel's reputation if it became known as a location that regularly had travellers.

breezy1985

tucker1971 wrote: »

Excellent suggestion

It is a good idea and would probably work some of the time.

But again like assuming she is young assuming no travellers own bank card or accounts is discrimination

seamus

Invidious wrote: »

My point is that Seamus assumes the woman is young, on the basis that she's a Traveller bride

Yeah, falling flat on your face there chief. You've made a blind assumption about my assumptions, based on your own prejudices.

Maybe you assumed she was young because she's a traveller.

I assumed she was young because she's getting married.

ELM327

TheBoyConor wrote: »

What could they say?

1.Oh sorry, we are all booked up for the next 18 months.
2. Quote them an outrageously inflated price so they won't take it. If questioned, they could quote very large security and bouncer costs.

They were smart enough not to say something explicit like "oh sorry, we don't take traveller weddings" instead, they just opted for the silent treatment and ignore them, but they were not cute enough to give some other claim-proof fobb off.

What could they have said that would have them in the clear? I don't think there is anything easy. Whatever is said, and whatever reason given, anyone looking at the situation will obviously know it is because they didn't want to run the risk of a traveller wedding ransacking the hotel.
If they did allow it and the place was trashed, the manager who took the booking would get an absolute bollocking out of it and possibly let go. Even if it passed off peacefully, it would be bad for the hotel's reputation if it became known as a location that regularly had travellers.

Bank transfer. Implement a "KYC" policy, ostensibly to avoid fraud, but to require photo id for the person booking and make sure the funds are legit.


Advise that all large payments (over1k) are reported to revenue to ensure tax legit.

ELM327

breezy1985 wrote: »

It is a good idea and would probably work some of the time.

But again like assuming she is young assuming no travellers own bank card or accounts is discrimination

It's one way of narrowing down the pool.
You can do other additional measures as I outlined too.


The important thing is that these WRC hearings do not mean you cannot discriminate, merely that you must be covert about doing so.



You cannot do =/= You cannot be seen doing.