A Sligo pub has been ordered to provide a free night's hospitality to a Traveller and his wife after it was found to have discriminated against the man by refusing him service.
However, the Office of the Director of Equality Investigations (ODEI) decided it was "inappropriate" to order the Ship Inn to pay compensation.
This was because the pub had served the Traveller, Mr David Sweeney, previously and was unaware of his peacemaking role on an earlier occasion when violence broke out in the pub.
Mr Sweeney claimed he was refused service in September 2001 because he had been in the Ship Inn the previous July when trouble broke out involving members of his extended family.
The ODEI equality officer accepted Garda evidence that Mr Sweeney had not been involved in the violence and had actually helped bring the situation under control. He had also obliged the pub on another occasion when it wanted to remove unruly Travellers.
The pub said it decided to bar all members of the extended Traveller family after the violence. The equality officer ruled that Mr Sweeney had been discriminated against under the Equal Status Act, 2000. In making the award of a night's free hospitality, however, he ruled that the pub was not required to admit anyone else from Mr Sweeney's extended family who had been involved in the violence.
In a second case, a Traveller lost his claim of discrimination against a nightclub after video evidence failed to show that he attended the venue on the night in question. Mr Martin Joseph Sweeney claimed that a doorman at the Equinox Niteclub had referred to his membership of the Travelling community in refusing him entry in September 2001.
Nightclub staff said they had no memory of the alleged incident but said Mr Sweeney had been refused previously following an incident with a doorman.
The nightclub produced video footage of the entrance to the club, taken on the night of the alleged incident. This was viewed by both parties, and showed no evidence of Mr Sweeney arriving at the club. The equality officer ruled that, in the absence of any clear evidence, a prima facie case of discrimination had not been established and ruled in favour of the nightclub.
