nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

"Management has the right to refuse entry"?? What section is this in in the law?

dnlmekonnen

Does anybody know of the section in the Irish law that says or backs up the statement "The Management has the right to refuse entry"? Specifically in the hospitality industry...
Thanks

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

MagicSean

In what way exactly. If someone denies you entry to a place and you go in anyway you are trespassing. Or do you mean what gives them the right to stop particular people?

234

It's just a general property right. You can exclude anybody or everybody unless they have lawful authority to be there. In the hosptiality sector this right would be restricted be legislation such as the Equal Status Act.

not even wrong

There is a common law general principle that "whatever is not forbidden is allowed" -- a private person or business can do whatever they want, unless it violates a specific law.

A business has the right to refuse someone entry to their premises in the same way as you have a right to refuse someone entry to your home (in reality the business has the Equal Status Act to worry about but the fundamental principle is the same).

cursai

Someone got refused to the nightclub last night........;)

ScouseMouse

My understanding, from over 15 years working in retail, and barring lots of feckers, is this.

It is perfectly legal to refuse entry to a premises. UNLESS it is done on the grounds of discrimination.

There are several grounds in question

The Gender ground, includes men and women and transgender

The Marital Status ground, includes single, married, separated, divorced or widowed

The Sexual Orientation ground, includes heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual orientation

The Religious Belief ground, includes religious background, outlook or none

The Age ground, applies to all ages above the maximum age at which a person is statutorily obliged to attend school

The Race ground, includes race, colour, nationality, or ethnic or national origin (including being a traveller.)

Grounds of disability.

Any complaint you may have, must fall into one of the above categories.

If bouncer says you had to much drink, were troublesome on a previous visit or something else, you cannot do much. But generally they don't say anything, as then they have to be able to back it up, and that opens up slander issues.

The onus is on you to prove discrimination.

(However, I am interested in what the legal forum makes of it.)

dnlmekonnen

superscouse wrote: »

.......
......
The onus is on you to prove discrimination.
.....

Thanks guys and Thanks superscouse

liamcun

I was refused entry to a livestock mart recently because the manager took a dislike to me as I made a complaint about his management of the mart. Can he do this? Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!!!!

Mikros

liamcun wrote: »

I was refused entry to a livestock mart recently because the manager took a dislike to me as I made a complaint about his management of the mart. Can he do this? Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!!!!

Pretty much answered above - a private business or property owner can exclude anyone they want as long as they are acting within the law. The relevant one being the Equal Status Act which prohibits discrimination on 9 grounds - Gender, Civil Status, Family Status, Age, Race, Religion, Disability, Sexual Orientation or Membership of the Traveller community.

wotswattage

superscouse wrote: »

My understanding, from over 15 years working in retail, and barring lots of feckers, is this.

It is perfectly legal to refuse entry to a premises. UNLESS it is done on the grounds of discrimination.

There are several grounds in question

The Gender ground, includes men and women and transgender

The Marital Status ground, includes single, married, separated, divorced or widowed

The Sexual Orientation ground, includes heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual orientation

The Religious Belief ground, includes religious background, outlook or none

The Age ground, applies to all ages above the maximum age at which a person is statutorily obliged to attend school

The Race ground, includes race, colour, nationality, or ethnic or national origin (including being a traveller.)

Grounds of disability.

Any complaint you may have, must fall into one of the above categories.

If bouncer says you had to much drink, were troublesome on a previous visit or something else, you cannot do much. But generally they don't say anything, as then they have to be able to back it up, and that opens up slander issues.

The onus is on you to prove discrimination.

(However, I am interested in what the legal forum makes of it.)

Good informative post there, just one query about the too much drink part. I know of some places (all pubs) which often use this reason and refuse someone on safety grounds to avoid being brought up for discrimination under the equality act. I know one place which uses it for almost all refusals especially when dealing with people likely to sue over being refused entry.

I'd imagine any case taken against a premises would rely on undermining the judgement of the bounder/barman in deciding who is drunk, which might not be an easy thing to do.

What do people on here think of businesses using this trick?

kippy

wotswattage wrote: »

Good informative post there, just one query about the too much drink part. I know of some places (all pubs) which often use this reason and refuse someone on safety grounds to avoid being brought up for discrimination under the equality act. I know one place which uses it for almost all refusals especially when dealing with people likely to sue over being refused entry.

I'd imagine any case taken against a premises would rely on undermining the judgement of the bounder/barman in deciding who is drunk, which might not be an easy thing to do.

What do people on here think of businesses using this trick?

Its generally not a trick. Too much drink could be one pint. Not necessarily a judgement on you being too drunk......

antodeco

Equally, if a premises says "over 23's" is that not refusing people based on their age, so discrimination?

Pro Hoc Vice

antodeco wrote: »

Equally, if a premises says "over 23's" is that not refusing people based on their age, so discrimination?

No there is an exception contained in the licencing Acts or Equility Act can't remember which off hand.

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

wotswattage

kippy wrote: »

Its generally not a trick. Too much drink could be one pint. Not necessarily a judgement on you being too drunk......

Ok I'll put it a bit more blatantly. I'm coming at this from the pub side where I do the refusing. I've been instructed to use the drunk card when refusing what I'd describe as people who may sue the pub over being refused whether they are drunk or not. Most of the time they are drunk. The reason being a person will find it more difficult to take a discrimination case against a pub over being refused on the grounds that they were drunk. As you said one pint could be too much.

Peregrinus

Well, why are you refusing them entry - or, at least, those of them who are not drunk? If the only problem is that they might sue if refused entry, you can make that problem go away by not refusing them entry. So there must be some other[/] reason for refusing them. What is it?

wotswattage

Well the real problem is the other regular customers would stop frequenting the place if these people were left in. It's a business at the end of the day. In a way it reflects more on the snobby regulars than the people being refused.

234

That's a perfectly legitimate reason for refusing entry, not that you even need a legitimate reason. Once you aren't doing it on the basis of any of the nine protected grounds then you are ok.

Peregrinus

Ooh, not so fast!

It depends on why you judge them to be someone who would make other patrons uncomfortable. I'm old enough to remember a time when some publicans refused admission to women, or admitted them to the loung only, on the grounds that their male customers expected a woman-free bar, and would go elsewhere if they didn't get it. Clearly, that excuse wouldn't fly today.

So if what offends the sensibilities of your established clientele includes anything to do with age, gender, membership of the traveller community or any of the other protected grounds, you have a problem.

Plus, there's another dimension when your talking about licensed premises rather than just, say, a burger joint. The whole point of a public house is that it offers refreshment to the public - there's a clue in the name, really - and that's not really consistent with turning away one section of the public in order to appeal to another. Even if its not be a breach of the Equal Status Act, it's the kind of thing that builds up resentment and division, and if you do too much of it aggro tends to result, and the guards don't like that, and it starts to get mentioned when your licence comes up for renewal.

234

Peregrinus wrote: »

Plus, there's another dimension when your talking about licensed premises rather than just, say, a burger joint. The whole point of a public house is that it offers refreshment to the public - there's a clue in the name, really - and that's not really consistent with turning away one section of the public in order to appeal to another. Even if its not be a breach of the Equal Status Act, it's the kind of thing that builds up resentment and division, and if you do too much of it aggro tends to result, and the guards don't like that, and it starts to get mentioned when your licence comes up for renewal.

That may have been true 30 years ago but not today. Tellingly, nobody calls then public houses anymore. People don't expect to be admitted as of right. Most people now regard pubs as more analogous to restaurants, they are not there as some kind of community service, they are businesses.

unattendedbag

So is it ok to refuse a person or group entry to a shop on the basis they will represent an increased risk of theft or shoplifting?

234

unattendedbag wrote: »

So is it ok to refuse a person or group entry to a shop on the basis they will represent an increased risk of theft or shoplifting?

Once it's not a proxy for one of the protected groups then yes. However if you are saying "These travelers will probably rob me" then you are really refusing on the basis of the membership of the travelling community, not the fact that they might steal.

There is also the issue of indirect discrimination, where a policy is ostensibly non-discriminatory, but in effect disproportionately impacts on one of the protected groups more than a comparitor. This should also be avoided.

Otherwise, yes, you can refuse entry on the basis that you think that a person might steal. But be careful not to defame them while you are at it.

Peregrinus

That's a tricky one - you have to feel that you can identify people prone to stealing without reference to their age, sex, ethnic or national background, family status, membership of the traveller community or any other of the protected grounds. That doesn't leave a lot of characteristics that you can legitimately use to identify likely thieves.

234

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's a tricky one - you have to feel that you can identify people prone to stealing without reference to their age, sex, ethnic or national background, family status, membership of the traveller community or any other of the protected grounds. That doesn't leave a lot of characteristics that you can legitimately use to identify likely thieves.

Stripey jumpers and bags marked "SWAG" are usually dead giveaways.

unattendedbag

234 wrote: »

Stripey jumpers and bags marked "SWAG" are usually dead giveaways.

Or stripey track suits marked Adidas

234

unattendedbag wrote: »

Or stripey track suits marked Adidas

You can't trust those Olympians.

wotswattage

234 wrote: »

That's a perfectly legitimate reason for refusing entry, not that you even need a legitimate reason. Once you aren't doing it on the basis of any of the nine protected grounds then you are ok.

But it seems I do need a legitimate reason for someone who falls into any of the categories of the equality act. I can refuse a 'normal' person for no reason management refuse the right of admission, but if it's someone from a specified category you can't just refuse them hence the refusing them on safety grounds on the basis that they are drunk and may injure themselves.

The problem is when you are refusing someone based on solely on their appearance and/or attitude and you have no idea if they are are part of a category from the equality act.

Example A:
Guy dressed as what the general public perceive to be a scumbag.
me: 'Not tonight'
him: 'why?'
me: 'management reserve the right to refuse admission'
him: 'ok'
-That's the end of it as he's a 'normal' citizen-

Example B:
Guy dressed as what the general public perceive to be a scumbag.
me: 'Not tonight'
him: 'why?'
me: 'management reserve the right to refuse admission'
him: 'That's discrimination'
-Problem-

Example C:
Guy dressed as what the general public perceive to be a scumbag.
me: 'Not tonight'
him: 'why?'
me: 'I feel that you are intoxicated and may present a danger to yourself or others if you are allowed onto the premises'
-No problem regardless which category they fall into, except that they may be stone cold sober-

234

wotswattage wrote: »

But it seems I do need a legitimate reason for someone who falls into any of the categories of the equality act. I can refuse a 'normal' person for no reason management refuse the right of admission, but if it's someone from a specified category you can't just refuse them hence the refusing them on safety grounds on the basis that they are drunk and may injure themselves.

The problem is when you are refusing someone based on solely on their appearance and/or attitude and you have no idea if they are are part of a category from the equality act.

Example A:
Guy dressed as what the general public perceive to be a scumbag.
me: 'Not tonight'
him: 'why?'
me: 'management reserve the right to refuse admission'
him: 'ok'
-That's the end of it as he's a 'normal' citizen-

Example B:
Guy dressed as what the general public perceive to be a scumbag.
me: 'Not tonight'
him: 'why?'
me: 'management reserve the right to refuse admission'
him: 'That's discrimination'
-Problem-

Example C:
Guy dressed as what the general public perceive to be a scumbag.
me: 'Not tonight'
him: 'why?'
me: 'I feel that you are intoxicated and may present a danger to yourself or others if you are allowed onto the premises'
-No problem regardless which category they fall into, except that they may be stone cold sober-

That's not really the question though.

People will always fall into multiple categories. Everybody has a gender, age, civil status, etc.

The issue is whether the protected ground is actually the reason for refusal. People on this thread have been trying to complicate the question unduly with the particular language or terms being used on the door.

If you are not actually discriminating on the basis of one of the protected grounds then there is no provable case. If you are just trying to find a way to actually discriminate on that basis, but dress it up in ROAR language, then you will always have a problem.

Lesson: make these decisions on a legitimate basis, which has been established before-hand, and can be shown to be legitimate.

wotswattage

Ok I apologise if I'm unduly complicating things, I was trying to put my points across in as straightforward a manner as possible.

234 wrote: »

That's not really the question though.

People will always fall into multiple categories. Everybody has a gender, age, civil status, etc.

The issue is whether the protected ground is actually the reason for refusal. People on this thread have been trying to complicate the question unduly with the particular language or terms being used on the door.

If you are not actually discriminating on the basis of one of the protected grounds then there is no provable case. If you are just trying to find a way to actually discriminate on that basis, but dress it up in ROAR language, then you will always have a problem.

Lesson: make these decisions on a legitimate basis, which has been established before-hand, and can be shown to be legitimate.

The issue is whether the protected ground is actually the reason for refusal.
This isn't the reason in the cases I'm talking about. Not exclusively anyway. It's impossible to tell if someone belongs to a protected group when initially deciding what to do. I'm worried if someone turn it on me and say 'this was the reason' when was actually something else..

If you are just trying to find a way to actually discriminate on that basis, but dress it up in ROAR language, then you will always have a problem.
ROAR language? EDIT: Right to refuse admission got i
As far as I can see, any reasons used for being refusal are legitimate and don't impede on any of the conditions of the equal status act mentioned earlier.

sawdoubters

http://itmtrav.ie/press/myview/66

The Equal Status Acts (as amended)
The Equal Status Act, 2000 outlaw discrimination in employment, vocational training, advertising, collective agreements, the provision of goods and services and other opportunities to which the public generally have access on nine distinct grounds.
These are:
• gender;
• civil status;
• family status;
• age;
• disability;
• race;
• sexual orientation;
• religious belief; and
• membership of the Traveller Community.
Definition of Traveller Community under the Equal Status Acts (as amended)
The Traveller community ground: People who are commonly called Travellers, who are identified both by Travellers and others as people with a shared history, culture and traditions, identified historically as a nomadic way of life on the island of Ireland;

Discrimination
Discrimination is described in the Act as the treatment of a person in a less favourable way than another person is, has been or would be treated on any of the above grounds

Peregrinus

wotswattage wrote: »

It's impossible to tell if someone belongs to a protected group when initially deciding what to do. I'm worried if someone turn it on me and say 'this was the reason' when was actually something else.

There aren't any "protected groups". (Or, alternatively, everyone is in the "protected group".)

What there are are "probited grounds". To turn away A while admitting B is discrimination, and (unless it comes within one of the exceptions in the Equal Status Act) it's unlawful discrimination if your reason for turning away A is based on A's gender, age, national origin, etc. And obviously you could be making judgments based on gender, etc just from looking at people.

You tell us that you're being instructed to say to people that they are being turned away for having drink on them (which is a lawful reason for turning them away). The fact that you're given this instruction raises a red flag; it implies that you are being encouraged to conceal the true reason for turning them away. And why might that be? Well, the possiblity will occur to us - and to a court, if it ever came to that - that the true reason might be concealed because it's one of the prohibited grounds. So, once it comes out that you are being less than candid about the reasons for turning people away, you're automatically on the back foot.

It doesn't follow, though, that your true reasons are illegal. I could see someone running a club deciding that he wants clientele who are slim, easy on the eye and decked out in designer labels, on the basis that if that's the tone of the club then more of such people will come, and anyone who lavishes money on designer clothes will also lavish money on desiger drinks and he will clean up. Thus people are turned away if they are insufficiently slim, insufficiently cute, or clad in no-label or daggy-label clothes, none of which are prohibited grounds. But since telling people that they don't look cool enough might give offence, instead he tells them they're drunk.

That's lawful, but it shades very easily into unlawful if, e.g., part of your criterial for coolness or cuteness is "under 35 or thereabouts". If age is a factor that you're taking into account in your admission decision (other than as requried by the licensing acts, of course) that's unlawful. And the fact that you're actively concealing the true reasons for your decisions creates a climate of suspicion in which people will be very much on the lookout for decisions based on prohibited grounds.

wotswattage

Nice balanced post there explaining my own fears over what may potentially happen.
It seems a case of definitely drawing trouble vs possibly drawing trouble.

Another reason we the drunk card (as you hinted) is simply to avoid a conflict. From real life experience simply telling someone (no matter what language you use) that you reserve the right to refuse admission more often than not winds them up and may provoke them into a physical conflict. Same with a simple no . Rationally and politely explaining to people 'look lads I think ye have had a few too many and may be better off trying somewhere else..' has proven to be the least confrontational way of refusing someone entry. The vast majority do have drink on board and once treated respectfully will go on and try somewhere else.