A Dublin restaurant allegedly refused to turn down “obscenely loud” music to accommodate a hearing-impaired diner, who says she was told the volume was “set at that level to go with the vibe of the restaurant”.
Emily Brady has accused the operator of Mexican eatery 777 on South Great George’s Street, Dublin 2, of discriminating against her on the grounds of disability by way of the alleged refusal on April 19th, this year.
The complaints are “vehemently denied” by the restaurant’s operator, JFL Ltd, which denies any failure to reasonably accommodate Ms Brady and maintains it was never put properly on notice of the claim.
In evidence to the Workplace Relations Commission last week, Ms Brady said she was there for a reunion dinner with four friends, but arrived to find her table was underneath a loudspeaker – making the environment “so loud people couldn’t speak”.
Stealth sackings: why do employers fire staff for minor misdemeanours?
How much of a threat is Donald Trump to the Irish economy?
MenoPal app offers proactive support to women going through menopause
Ezviz RE4 Plus review: Efficient budget robot cleaner but can suffer from wanderlust under the wrong conditions
Ms Brady said she asked a waitress about turning down the music or being moved to another table, only for the restaurant host to tell her the music “couldn’t be turned down” because the volume was “set at that level to go with the vibe of the restaurant”.
“The main host said no and walked away,” she said.
She later made contact with the restaurant by email and on social media, before posting a one-star online review she shared on her own Instagram page.
“It was a humiliating and upsetting experience. I was diagnosed with a hearing impairment in early adulthood ... this experience has really set me back,” she said.
“Previously at 777 I didn’t find the music so loud that people couldn’t speak. In the circumstances, the music was obscenely loud, to the extent that the glass was shaking in the window,” the complainant said.
She said the restaurant responded to her later written inquiries in a “sarcastic tone”.
“They didn’t care that I existed. People with disabilities, or marginalised communities don’t fit their vibe and aren’t welcome in their establishment,” she said.
“The establishment, as a restaurant, you’d expect to be able to converse with the people you’re with. I was not able to converse with my friends – any ordering, I wasn’t able to do, I had to hand over to my friends,” she said.
Cross-examining the complainant, the respondent’s solicitor, Ms Loughnane, put it to her that the party of five paid for six cocktails, seven beers and food over the course of a two-hour sitting.
“It’s quite a long time and a large bill for someone who alleges they were experiencing discrimination for that entire period,” Ms Loughnane said.
“Yeah, I guess so but what I would say is that during the whole time we were waiting on these plates, we tried to grab the attention of the host. We were waiting to see if the music would be turned down or moved to another table. It was that or either pay the bill and leave, not satisfied ... We sort of just endured it,” she said.
“Endured it, six cocktails, seven beers and food from the menu?” Ms Loughnane asked.
“Yes,” said the complainant.
Pressed further by Ms Loughnane, Ms Brady accepted she knew the restaurant had a “bold, high-energy” ambience, but said that on a prior visit the music was set to a level that allowed her to hear.
A friend of Ms Brady’s, Pat McCarthy, said the host told the party “unapologetically” that “the volume of the music was the vibe of the restaurant”.
“No accommodation was made,” he said.
Ms Loughnane put it to both Mr McCarthy and Ms Brady that the restaurant’s manager would give evidence on a future date to state that he turned down the music.
This was disputed by both Ms Brady and Mr McCarthy in cross-examination.
The company’s solicitor had said at the outset of proceedings that it “vehemently denied” the claim but was prepared to approach the matter on an “economic basis” with Ms Brady.
Ms Brady, who had travelled from the UK to make out her case, said she was “happy to proceed”.
The hearing was adjourned on Friday to be heard remotely to accommodate the complainant and the former manager, who both now live overseas, the tribunal was told.
