Man awarded €500 for discrimination after porter at Dublin’s Gresham Hotel insisted he wear a face mask

Gresham Hotel, Dublin

9 March 2022

A man has been awarded €500 for discrimination after being left upset and embarrassed by the insistence of a porter at Dublin’s historic Gresham Hotel that he put on a face mask when he was medically exempt.

The Workplace Relations Commission has upheld a discrimination claim taken by James Oliver Tattan under the Equal Status Act against the Gresham Hotel, O’Connell Street Upper, Dublin 1.

At an adjudication hearing last August, Mr Tattan gave evidence that he had a “serious health condition” which prevented him from wearing a face covering and was exempt from the rules.

He said he was on his way to meet a friend at the Gresham on 16 December 2020 when a porter challenged him in the lobby and asked him where his mask was.

Mr Tattan had a letter confirming his disability, but he said the porter refused to look at it.

He asked: “Are you putting me out of the hotel?”

Other people in the lobby were looking over at them during the exchange and Mr Tattan said he felt embarrassed and didn’t want any more hassle, so he left.

The hotel’s management told the commission it had reviewed CCTV of the incident and had spoken with the porter, who has since returned to his home country.

It agreed that Mr Tattan had been told he must wear a mask before coming in, but said he “did not produce any letter confirming a medical condition preventing him him from wearing a mask”.

“The incident took place at the height of the pandemic,” they added. “The hotel’s procedure is if a guest cannot wear a mask the person is then offered a face shield. If a face shield is refused the guest cannot enter the hotel.”

Mr Tattan said he was never offered a face shield.

The hotel was unable to produce the CCTV footage of the incident as it had been overwritten.

It denied any discrimination and said it was “complying with health and safety protocols for the protection of guests and staff”.

Mr Tattan also said he had no response from the hotel to his statutory claim form. The hotel said it had attempted to deliver its response by courier but had been unable to make delivery as it had no phone number or email address for Mr Tattan.

In her decision, adjudication officer Davnet O’Driscoll wrote that the mask regulations in force at the time of the incident stated that a mask “should not be required where the individual has a ‘reasonable excuse’ which includes a disability”.

“There is a conflict between the submission of the hotel and the complainant’s evidence. I accept the complainant’s evidence that he was not given the option of wearing a face shield and felt he had no option but to leave the hotel,” she wrote.

She upheld the discrimination complaint and awarded Mr Tattan €500 for his “distress” and “the effects of discrimination”.

If you would like an assessment of a claim, you can use the online form available here without obligation or alternatively you can use the automatic claim calculator.

Follow us for the latest updates & news

Recent News

Autistic cinema manager wins €12k over discrimination in roster row

An autistic cinema manager who quit when his employer was unable to guarantee him two days off in a row following a months-long dispute over rostering arrangements has secured €12,000 in compensation for disability discrimination. The complainant's wife gave evidence...

Northern Ireland exam board boss wins £100,000 settlement

Northern Ireland’s Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) has paid a substantial settlement to its former interim chief executive who complained of sex, race and age discrimination and constructive dismissal. The sum paid to Margaret Farragher,...

Recent Articles

Psychological Injury

Nervous Shock I The law allows recovery of damages for so called nervous shock, within certain parameters and subject to limitations.  Nervous shock is the most commonly used legal label for psychiatric or psychological injury. Psychiatric injuries include...

Public Authorities and Negligence

Powers and Duties In broad terms, public authorities are subject to civil liability for negligence and other civil wrongs, in the same way as private individuals and companies.  The State and other public bodies are responsible for the actions and omissions of...

Duty of Care (Part 2)

Limits to Neighbour Principle The famous neighbour principle re-stated the general basis of liability in negligence. It stated, that “you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your...

Duty of Care (Part 1)

Meaning of Negligence I Negligence is used in a number of senses.  In one sense, it refers to a person’s state of mind.  An act is negligent, where it is done without giving due weight to the risks involved.  A person  (and his state of mind) may...

Join our Panel

You May Also Like...