Claudia Tanase, a Roma woman represented by FLAC, has been awarded €800 by the Workplace Relations Commission after an adjudicator found she was unlawfully discriminated against by a security guard at a Boots store on Dublin’s Henry Street on 3 October 2024.
The Henry Street Incident and WRC Findings
Ms Tanase visited the Boots pharmacy on Henry Street with her ill child to buy medicine. According to her submission to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), a security guard refused her entry based on her Roma ethnicity. She stated the guard told her he had been instructed not to admit members of the Roma community, noting she was identifiable through her appearance, complexion, accent, and traditional dress.
A recorded, heated exchange followed the refusal. Ms Tanase was eventually permitted to enter the pharmacy to purchase the medicine before being told to leave the shop. She stated the public incident caused her distress and humiliation, while her child was frightened and upset. In video evidence, the security guard was heard referring to trouble with “you people.”
Did you know? The WRC adjudicator ruled that Boots Retail (Ireland) Limited was “vicariously liable” for the security guard’s actions, noting that while the guard was employed by a third-party contractor, he controlled entry and interacted with customers to provide Boots’ services.
Boots’ Defense and Legal Liability
Boots initially denied liability and claimed it had no record of the incident, according to the complainant. After receiving the recording of the exchange, the shop indicated further investigations would take place and suggested responsibility lay with the third-party security contractor. However, the WRC noted that Boots’ initial response defended the actions of the security guard, which was consistent with an acceptance that the guard was acting on the shop’s behalf.
The shop alleged Ms Tanase had engaged in anti-social behaviour, but declined to provide particulars when asked. Solicitors for Boots subsequently denied liability by letter and asserted the third-party security contractor was the correct respondent. The WRC rejected these arguments, finding that the shop engaged in prohibited conduct through its agent and ordering the €800 compensation award to be proportionate.
Retail Industry Impact and FLAC’s Response
Following the decision, the WRC directed Boots to ensure that all security personnel assigned to its premises receive appropriate briefing or training regarding the Equal Status Acts. These acts prohibit discrimination on a number of grounds in access to goods and services.
FLAC managing solicitor Sinéad Lucey commented on the ruling, stating that the decision is an important reminder of the equality obligations placed on providers of goods and services. Ms Lucey noted that FLAC’s Roma Legal Clinic frequently represents Roma women who face discrimination in retail settings, often where retailers attempt to deflect responsibility onto separate security firms. FLAC called for the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission to issue a statutory Code of Practice concerning non-discrimination in retail access and the responsibilities of security guards.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the WRC order Boots to do?
The WRC ordered Boots Retail (Ireland) Limited to pay €800 in compensation to Claudia Tanase and directed the company to ensure all security personnel assigned to its premises receive appropriate training on the Equal Status Acts.
Who is legally responsible for third-party security guards under this ruling?
The WRC found the retail outlet vicariously liable for the actions of the third-party security guard because the shop appointed the guard’s employer, and the guard controlled customer entry and provided services on the retailer’s behalf.
What legislation governs discrimination in shop access in Ireland?
The Equal Status Acts prohibit discrimination on several grounds, including ethnic background, in the provision of and access to goods and services.