Courts

Supermarket ordered to pay man €6,000 over racial discrimination and harassment

The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) concluded the man, who is from the Roma community, was refused service ‘based on a stereotype’

The WRC heard that on October 5th 2023, while in the store with his daughter, the man said he had gone to the till to pay for his shopping but was told by a worker that he 'was not allowed in the store'
The WRC heard that on October 5th 2023, while in the store with his daughter, the man said he had gone to the till to pay for his shopping but was told by a worker that he 'was not allowed in the store'
Stephen Bourke
Thu Sept 19 2024 - 19:09

A supermarket has been ordered to pay a man €6,000 for racial discrimination and harassment.

The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) concluded the man, who is from the Roma community, was refused service “based on a stereotype” and that the staff at the shop knew the man was Roma and were “under instruction” to deny him service if he came in.

The findings were made in an anonymised decision on a complaint under the Equal Status Act 2000 against an unidentified supermarket in a provincial town.

The tribunal heard the man was living in the town over nine years and that his home was a short walk from the supermarket, from which his wife had been barred in April 2023. This was because, according to the store’s owner, she became abusive and threw a basket at him after he told her that her children were being disruptive and annoying customers.

READ MORE

Lorna Madden BL, appearing instructed by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC), submitted that in addition to discrimination and harassment on the grounds of race and ethnicity, her client had also been victimised for filing initial notice of a claim of discrimination on behalf of his wife after she was barred.

[ Some 21 men begin studies for ordination as Catholic priests ]

The claimant said he decided not to pursue the matter further and later went to the shop to meet its owner, apologising for his wife’s behaviour.

On October 5th 2023, while in the store with his daughter, the man said he had gone to the till to pay for his shopping but was told by a worker that he “was not allowed in the store”.

The shop assistant, Ms A, denied telling the man he was barred. She said she “had an immediate feeling of dread and felt anxious and intimidated by the complainant before he had said a word” and told the WRC he was “staring” at her.

The complainant then called her a “racist” and she put the groceries aside and called her manager over, she said.

The assistant manager, Mr C, said the claimant was “shouting loudly” when he came over.

Mr C said he offered to serve the complainant, but the man then called him a racist and that at that point he decided to ask him to leave.

The complainant was “barred because he called us racists”, Mr C added.

The supermarket, which was represented by Tommy Smyth of TSA Consultants, denied racial discrimination and took the position that the complainant was “unpleasant and rude to employees”.

Adjudicator Thomas O’Driscoll concluded the refusal of service amounted to an inference of discrimination on the grounds of membership of the Traveller or Roma community that “was not satisfactorily rebutted” and directed the supermarket pay €6,000 in compensation to the man.

In a separate decision, the WRC awarded €5,000 to an 11-year-old Traveller boy who was refused service when he went in by himself to buy a soft drink at a different shop on the evening of November 23rd last year.

The boy’s father, who was waiting outside in a car, said his son returned to him upset, having been told to leave.

He said that when they went back in together, a worker told them there was a “law” that they could not serve a child under 14 without an adult being present – and pointed them to a sign to that effect.

The shop’s owner gave sworn evidence that he had put in the policy in January 2020 after an elderly man suffered “life-changing injuries” because of teenagers “running down the aisles of the shop”.

Adjudicator Patsy Doyle found the respondent had failed to provide her with evidence that the policy of not serving unaccompanied under-14s after 6pm was being applied consistently.

Upholding a complaint of discrimination made on behalf of the boy under the Equal Status Act 2000, Ms Doyle awarded him €5,000.