Woman awarded €15,000 after being mistaken for shoplifter

An intellectually disabled woman who was refused service after being mistaken for a known shoplifter by a security manager has won €15,000 in compensation.

The Workplace Relations Commission heard the woman left “without protest or inquiry” when it happened on November 18th, 2021, and only got the “mistaken identity” explanation from the shop “just before” a hearing into her discrimination complaint opened a year later – without any apology.

The tribunal found the shop, which was not identified as the decision was wholly anonymised, had discriminated against the woman on the grounds of her disability in a breach of the Equal Status Act 2000.

Giving evidence to an equality hearing last November, the woman’s sister said she phoned the shop manager to ask why the complainant was refused.

Bonds are back: but should you invest?

---

‘Students are struggling in ways we haven’t seen before’

---

Fintan O'Toole: Catastrophic decline of wild Irish salmon is another of the slow scandals of Irish life

---

‘We’re moving with the times’: Private all-girls’ school in south Dublin to admit boys for first time

---

[ Pregnant producer dismissed over fear colleague would quit rather than keep working with her, WRC told ]

The manager told her the complainant was “caught shoplifting there on the last Sunday in February 2021″ and was “banned” from the premises and the rest of the retailer’s outlets, the witness said.

She said the manager went on to say gardaí had been “involved” and that her sister “had not paid” for goods from both that shop and another in the town.

That “never happened”, the witness said, adding that she phoned the local Garda station to check and was told it had “no record of any shoplifting incident” involving her sister.

When she rang the manager back and asked for the name of the arresting garda in the alleged shoplifting incident, the manager told her he was “not at liberty to provide this information”, the witness said.

She said she then went on to seek the information in writing from the company, and filled out a GDPR data subject access request, but that neither this nor the statutory complaint form she served on the firm on her sister’s behalf got a reply.

‘Distress’

The shop’s case was that its security manager thought he recognised the complainant from a “previous shoplifting event” and told her: “Sorry, you’re not allowed in here today.”

The complainant then, “without further protest or inquiry, turned around and walked back the way she’d come”.

Giving evidence, the security manager said he knew the name of the “actual shoplifter” and had relied on the complainant’s appearance to identify her – but had not asked her name.

Hannah Cahill, who appeared for the shop, said it was a case of mistaken identity, and that the woman’s evidence was that she “was not given a reason” and her testimony “offers no explanation whatsoever as to why she was refused admission, only that she was”.

[ Disability discrimination highest area of public contact to equality commission ]

“It is quite difficult to refute a claim of discrimination, where no tangible details of such discrimination are provided that can be countered,” Ms Cahill added, calling the complaint “completely unfounded”.

Upholding a complaint of discrimination on the grounds of disability under the Equal Status Act 2000, adjudicating officer Shay Henry accepted “fully” that the denial of service was “based on mistaken identity”.

“I note that the respondent’s assertion in this regard was not communicated to the complainant until just before the hearing and that no apology was ever given to the complainant,” he wrote.

Mr Henry said that if the security guard had asked the complainant her name, “the matter could have been resolved immediately without the distress caused”.

“Due to her disability, the complainant was unable to challenge his assumption on the day. I therefore conclude that the complainant was denied service on the grounds of her disability and was discriminated against,” Mr Henry added, awarding €15,000 as “just and equitable” compensation.

He made his decision in the matter anonymous on the grounds of the complainant’s disability.