WRC finds businesses ‘entitled to refuse service’

Workplace Relations Commission adjudication officer Lefre de Burgh has found that a complaint of discrimination by a charity shop was not well founded.

The complainant was Ciprian Constantin, who was represented by Lorna Madden BL, instructed by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission.

The respondent was Cobh Youth Services CLG/Re-store, a charity shop in Co Cork, represented by Ali Bracken Ziad BL and instructed by Charles C Daly & Co.

Adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission was sought for the complaint under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000.

A Romanian language interpreter was provided by the WRC for the case, which was heard on 13 November 2025.

Protected ground of race

Having heard preliminary argument by counsel for both sides, the adjudication officer said that she would hear evidence in relation to events on 8 and 20 August, on the protected ground of race, only.

The complainant alleged that he was the victim of discrimination and harassment on the basis of his race, contrary to the act, at the hands of the respondent.

He alleged that he was unlawfully refused service and unlawfully barred from the respondent’s shop on the basis of stereotyping.

Aggressive and intimidating behaviour

The respondent submitted that the complainant was lawfully refused service and lawfully barred from the  shop on the basis of aggressive and intimidating behaviour towards staff, in the context of a consumer dispute about the return of an item he purchased.

The complainant asked for, and received, a discount for the item purchased.

In her decision for the WRC (11 June), the adjudicator said that she had formed the view that the complainant’s interactions with the respondent were in bad faith.

She added that two videos, admitted to evidence and proffered by the complainant in support of his case, undercut and contradicted his case.

“There is aggression, but it is from the complainant,” the officer decided.

Not persuaded 

“I did not find the evidence put forth by or on behalf of the complainant to be credible, and I am not persuaded by it,” the decision continues.

The officer did not accept that staff members were shouting at him or at his wife.

“By contrast, I found the evidence given on behalf of the respondent to be highly persuasive,” the officer continues.

She also accepted respondent evidence on the complainant’s behaviour, tone, and attitude.

“I found her to be an honest, cogent and credible witness and I am persuaded by her evidence,” the adjudication officer said.

She also noted that all the staff in the shop were women and were subject to aggression and intimidation by the complainant as they did their public-facing job.

“On its face, this is a consumer dispute. It should be capable of being resolved amicably and in line with consumer-protection law,” she said.

“Simply because someone does not get the outcome they want does not, in and of itself, indicate discrimination,” the officer continues.

Businesses are entitled to refuse service, the decision continues.

Attitude and conduct

“In this case, service was not refused on the basis of a protected ground. It was refused on the basis of the attitude and conduct of the complainant,” the decision adds.

The complainant was not stereotyped, she said, and was not excluded on the basis of his race or ethnicity, but rather on the basis of his conduct.

The complainant insisted that a shop assistant refund him and was aggressive in his interactions with her, the decision finds.

“Not getting your own way having forcefully demanded it does not indicate discrimination,” the decision adds.

Neither did the officer accept the interpretation of the legislation put forward by counsel for the complainant suggesting he can advance a case for discrimination by association in circumstances where a family member of his was refused service.