Cases Studies of Equality Tribunal Rulings
To see how other people have successfully taken claims for discrimination, take a look at our case studies of Equality Tribunal rulings on inaccessible buildings and services.
NCBI commends the claimants for their courage and determination in taking these cases and we continue to encourage people who are blind or vision impaired to defend their rights.
Joan Salmon v Para Equestrian Ireland (2004)
On 10th May 2004, the Circuit Court Judge, Justice Katherine Delahunt found that Joan Salmon, a horsewoman with a vision impairment, had been discriminated by Para Equestrian Ireland following her questioning through the media why she was not allowed by Para Equestrian Ireland to bring her guide dog to a training event in Scotland in July 2001.
Para Equestrian Ireland were ordered to pay €3,500 in compensation to Joan and to reinstate her to membership of and full participation in the sporting events of Para Equestrian Ireland, and that reasonable accommodation be provided to permit her to participate fully. The case taken by Joan was an appeal of the Equality Tribunal decision in February 2004 which found against her. This appeal was supported by the Equality Authority.
Following the decision, Joan said “I am glad that justice has now been done so that I can compete internationally in the sport that I love. This is all that I have wanted for a very long time and I am glad that I can close the chapter on this book and move on.”
Des Murphy v Dublin City Council (2007)
A claim of discrimination under the Equal Status Act in relation to a local authority switching off audible crossing signals at pedestrian crossings was settled in April 2007. The claimant, Des Murphy, was represented by the Equality Authority in the case.
The case goes back to 2004, when Dublin City Council (DCC) switched off audible crossing signals at pedestrian crossings in Dublin where audible units were located close to each other. They claimed that this was done due to the confusion caused for sighted pedestrians who may have mistakenly crossed the road on hearing the signal from an adjoining crossing. However, the City Council did not have any written complaints to back up this concern. The decision to switch off the audible units was taken without any publicity and without any consultation with the NCBI.
As a result of this decision, Des Murphy, who has a vision impairment, found it very difficult to travel around the city independently and tried, unsuccessfully, to resolve the matter by correspondence. He subsequently made a claim of discrimination on the disability ground under the Equal Status Acts against Dublin City Council, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Department of Transport.
Mediations between the parties continued throughout 2005 and 2006 but failed to resolve the issues and finally, in January of 2007, the case was given a hearing at the Equality Tribunal.
The Equality Authority represented Des and submitted, on his behalf, that:
- best practice in relation to making reasonable accommodation for people who are vision impaired required that pedestrian crossing signals with visible signage should be accompanied by an audible unit;
- international best practice demonstrated that there should be no confusion between audible signals where they are at least three metres apart.
Dublin City Council agreed, without admission of liability, to:
- switch back on audible signals at junctions where the poles are at least three metres apart;
- move the poles, run the pedestrian signals concurrently or make use of tactile devices where poles are currently less than three metres apart;
- consult with NCBI in relation to changes on developments to audible traffic signal crossings and to have meetings at regular intervals;
- make a payment of €4,000 in compensation to Des;
- Des also agreed to withdraw his claims against the Department of Transport and the Department of Environment and Local Government.
Des was also pleased to note that DCC will consult with NCBI on other signals throughout the city. He said: “Audible signals give me the confidence and independence I require to make my way comfortably and safely around the city, and it’s good to know now that DCC is agreeable to consult with NCBI on the provision of additional signals at traffic junctions in the greater Dublin area.”
Maureen McNabola v Health Service Executive and Department of Health and Children (2008)
Maureen McNabola, a person with vision impairment, lives in a rural area where public transport was very limited. Maureen has to depend on her husband to drive her to where she needed to go. She had been in receipt of the motorised transport grant since 1996. The motorised transport grant provides financial assistance to people with a disability who need to purchase or adapt a car for employment. In exceptional circumstances, the grant is payable to people with disabilities living in very isolated areas and Maureen received the grant on this basis.
After an application for the grant to the Health Service Executive, Maureen was informed that she would no longer be entitled to it as she was approaching her 70th birthday and the grant had an upper age limit of 66 years.
Following correspondence between the Equality Authority, the Health Service Executive and the Department of Health and Children, which had responsibility for the criteria, the Department removed the age limit. A grant €4,917.20 was then paid to Maureen in arrears and she is eligible to apply for this grant in the future.
Gabriel Moloney v Park House Hotel (2008)
In 2008, Gabriel Moloney was awarded €3,500 under the Equal Status Act by the Equality Tribunal after the Park House Hotel, Edgeworthstown, Co Longford, refused him permission to bring his guide dog for an overnight stay at the hotel. Gabriel relies on his guide dog as a means of navigation and independent living.
At the hearing, the hotel's representative acknowledged that the treatment “’was wrong and regrettable’ and the manager on duty on the night made an error of judgment and was unaware that guide dogs were an exception to the hotel's 'no dogs allowed' policy.”
The Equality Officer awarded compensation to Gabriel and ordered the hotel to produce a written policy on customer service for people with disabilities, which should be used to train all hotel staff immediately. The hotel were also instructed to ensure that a copy of the policy be available at the hotel’s reception.
Zehanne Kenny v Sufi’s Café (2008)
When restaurant staff broke equality law by refusing to provide enough light for Zehanne Kenny to read the menu, she decided to take legal action.
Zehanne has a vision impairment and has always found it difficult to find restaurants with enough lighting to be able to read the menu. So she was delighted to find a place that seemed ideal, Sufi's Café, on St Stephen’s Green in Dublin, and she soon became a regular customer. Sufi's had a dimmer switch arrangement, which allowed a section of the seating area to be brightened up on request. Once I had explained to the management about my poor eyesight, they had been happy to oblige.
One night, all this changed. Zehanne went into Sufi's Café and asked for the lighting dimmer to be altered and was told, “No, other customers have been complaining”. She responded: “Okay, that’s fine, but could you just put a small lamp on the table for me please?” She was shocked by the response: “No we don’t have lamps and we checked the legal position, we don’t have to cater for your needs.”
Zehanne explained that under the Equal Status Act, they did in fact have to do all that was reasonable to cater for her needs, or those of any customer with a disability. The waiter responded with “Write to the owner”, so she said, “I’ve a better idea – I’ll bring the matter before the Equality Tribunal!”
Zehanne went to the Equality Tribunal website first, and that gave her information on the procedure she had to follow. One month after setting the wheels in motion, Sufi’s and Zehanne agreed to mediation. Although this mediation worked, Sufi’s’ failed to keep to it, and this meant the case had to be assigned to an Equality Officer for judgement.
It takes up to three years before a case comes up. Finally, the date of the case arrived and she went to the Tribunal’s offices, in Clonmel Street, accompanied by her advocate. No one from Sufi’s turned up, but The Equality Officer decided to go ahead and hear her evidence. She then had to wait a few weeks for the judgement to arrive.
A few weeks later, a letter stating that the judgement was in Zehanne’s favour arrived – Sufi’s were to pay her €250 and ensure their staff received training in disability awareness.
However, many weeks passed (well over the 40 days allowed for the losing side to appeal the case) and nothing happened. Zehanne phoned the Tribunal and was told that they only make judgements, they don’t enforce them. It was never about money, it was the principle – Sufi’s blatantly broke the law and thought nothing of it, so she felt she had to keep fighting.
She began the process of taking them to the circuit court. The day before she was due to meet a lawyer and make an affidavit, a letter arrived from the Equality Tribunal enclosing a cheque from Sufi’s for €250.
On reflection, Zehanne said she learnt that the Equality Tribunal is not fully effective. A body that cannot enforce judgements seems pretty limited. It’s not enough to just take a case and let it run its course, people with disabilities need to be prepared to follow it through.
Rather then being discouraged, this entire episode has convinced Zehanne that work needs to be done by everyone who is dissatisfied with the ‘inclusion in theory but exclusion in practice’ ethos which prevails.