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

Fly_away · 25-01-2021 11:12am #1

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 · 25-01-2021 11:13am

They still ended up saving themselves money IMO.

colm_mcm · 25-01-2021 11:19am

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

cgcsb · 25-01-2021 11:21am

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 · 25-01-2021 11:24am

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 · 25-01-2021 11:24am

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 · 25-01-2021 11:25am

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 · 25-01-2021 11:29am

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 · 25-01-2021 11:29am

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 · 25-01-2021 11:31am

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 · 25-01-2021 11:31am

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 · 25-01-2021 11:36am

Why isn't the hotel's name published?

Fly_away · 25-01-2021 11:36am

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.

25-01-2021 11:36am

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 · 25-01-2021 11:37am

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 · 25-01-2021 11:38am

Pre-crime

Kaybaykwah · 25-01-2021 11:41am

dinneenp wrote: »

Why isn't the hotel's name published?

Traveller's Inn?

25-01-2021 11:42am

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 · 25-01-2021 11:54am

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 · 25-01-2021 11:58am

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 · 25-01-2021 12:04pm

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 · 25-01-2021 12:06pm

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.

25-01-2021 12:06pm

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 · 25-01-2021 12:08pm

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 · 25-01-2021 12:10pm

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 · 25-01-2021 12:11pm

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 · 25-01-2021 12:11pm

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 · 25-01-2021 12:13pm

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 · 25-01-2021 12:13pm

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 · 25-01-2021 12:13pm

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 · 25-01-2021 12:15pm

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:

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

Comments