Paralympian’s claim against Dublin restaurant ‘resolved’

Paralympic cyclist Martin Gordon has “resolved” a disability discrimination claim against a French bistro after accusing it of refusing to let him and his family dine indoors last year because he had his guide dog with him.

Semogo Ltd, the operator of La Maison on Castle Market off South William Street, Dublin 2, had denied Mr Gordon’s complaint under the Equal Status Act 2000, in which he has alleged discrimination on the basis of visual impairment on Saturday, 14 January 2023.

However, after hearing several hours of witness testimony on the alleged incident, the Workplace Relations Commission was told on Monday: “Peace has broken out.”

The tribunal heard that on the day in question, Mr Gordon and his partner, Louise Byrne – along with Mr Gordon’s guide dog, Juno – had collected their nine-year-old daughter from a French lesson at the nearby Alliance Francaise that afternoon, intending to have lunch at La Maison as “part of the French experience”, their barrister told the WRC today.

Helen Callanan SC, appearing for Mr Gordon with Ruth Mylotte BL, instructed by solicitor Mark McElwaine of RDJ LLP, said the restaurant had refused her client and his family “three times on the basis they had a guide dog”. Its staff only told the couple they had “no space” when Mr Gordon, a qualified barrister, told them they were breaking the law, it was submitted.

The restaurant’s barrister Frank Beatty SC, appearing instructed by Peter Kelly of AC Forde & Co, told the tribunal that La Maison “cannot be expected” to cancel a customer who has gone to the trouble of booking a table”.

The policy on dogs was that although La Maison had once been a “dog-friendly restaurant”, the management found dogs were “causing a difficulty” and ended the arrangement – setting aside one table on its terrace for patrons with dogs, counsel said.

Mr Beatty told the tribunal that the server first encountered by the family on the day, Magdalena Toma, would give evidence that “contrary to what was said by the complainant, the dog was not in sight”.

“You’ll see from CCTV the dog is not only behind Ms Byrne and the claimant, but Ms Byrne is carrying bags,” he said.

He said Ms Toma was “at no time” told by the couple that Juno was a guide dog. “Yes, they were told the policy was that dogs were not allowed inside; when there was a level of protest, Ms Toma went in and got [the reservations manager]. Only then was it first disclosed by the claimant… that it was in fact a guide dog.”

He added that the restaurant’s reservations manager, Leanne Murphy, the partner of the restaurant’s co-owner, Georgio Urbani, then went back inside and “sought to see could she facilitate the claimant” but that only then realised the restaurant was “booked up”.

Giving evidence today, Ms Byrne said she asked the server for a table for three, but was told by response: “No problem, but it’ll have to be outside because of the dog.”

“I said, or Martin said: ‘No, it’s a guide dog’,” Ms Byrne said. She said the server’s reply to that was: “House policy is all dogs outside.”

Counsel for the complainant, Ms Callanan said: “Ms Byrne, you heard Mr Beatty saying that the evidence will be Ms Toma didn’t see any dog.”

“I didn’t say that; I said she didn’t see it was a guide dog,” Mr Beatty interjected.

Ms Byrne repeated that the words “guide dog” were used and that in response she was “very clearly told the house policy was that it would have to be outside”.

“She didn’t understand the difference between a pet dog and a service animal,” the witness said.

Ms Murphy, the reservations manager, then emerged and informed them that they would have to sit outside, Ms Byrne said.

“We said: ‘But it’s a guide dog’, and I’m seen on CCTV pointing,” Ms Byrne continued. She said Ms Murphy’s response was “I can see that,” or “I’m aware of that.”

“Did she change her mind?” Ms Callanan asked.

“Not at all,” Ms Byrne said.

“This for me was a very shocking and upsetting experience… when I watched the CCTV I can see myself, I can see my jaw dropping,” Ms Byrne said. “Our reactions aren’t the reactions of people being told: ‘Oh, we’re full,’” Ms Byrne said.

Cross-examining Ms Byrne, Mr Beatty put it to the witness that when she first went to the door, she was carrying three bags and as a result, Juno the dog was “not in view” from where the server was standing.

“I don’t accept the dog isn’t in view,” Ms Byrne said, though when Mr Beatty questioned her further on this she accepted the server “may not have seen the dog” from inside the restaurant.

“Even if she didn’t see, we told her,” Ms Byrne said.

Mr Beatty put it to her that Juno’s status as a guide dog “may have been hidden” from the server.

“I don’t accept that, because of the yellow harness I can see Martin lifting up,” Ms Byrne said.

Mr Beatty later put it to the witness that the second employee who dealt with the family, Ms Murphy, was “told this was a dog, simpliciter” and “came out to tell you that the policy in relation to dogs simpliciter was that they were not allowed”.

It was only at this point that a member of staff was told Juno was a guide dog, Mr Beatty said. Ms Byrne disagreed.

Counsel for the restaurant, Mr Beatty, said his clients ran a “terribly conscientious restaurant that has been in the business for years”.

“It is with some disappointment they find themselves [here] today, but particularly in relation to the attention from the media,” he told the WRC, adding that there had been “very unpleasant calls” made to the establishment in connection with the proceedings.

Ms Byrne’s cross-examination was suspended while the parties took lunch, with adjudicator Brian Dalton indicating that he was prepared to take the evidence of Ms Toma that afternoon, prior to the conclusion of the complainant case, in order to facilitate her with childcare needs.

When the matter resumed following an extended break, Ms Callanan addressed Mr Dalton and told him: “Peace has broken out… we’re glad to say it’s been resolved.”

The adjudicator said the WRC’s usual approach where parties had “reached an agreement” was that the complainant side would give him an instruction to withdraw the case on a certain date.

Four weeks was sought and granted, and Mr Dalton adjourned the matter, where Ms Byrne was the only witness called.