A Queensland man with anxiety who was prohibited from accessing the grounds of his neighborhood bar with his service dog has been given compensation.
Woombye Pub on the Sunshine Coast hinterland was sentenced to pay Raymond Matthews $8,000 in damages after a tribunal found that it had violated anti-discrimination rules.
The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal heard that between late 2017 and September 2020, hotel staff informed Mr. Matthews five times that he couldn’t enter the property with his assistance chihuahua named “Kooy2” unless he produced an official guide dog, assistance dog, or hearing dog identity card.
After being barred from the pub for a month on one of those occasions in September 2020, the Woombye local filed a complaint with the Queensland Human Rights Commissioner, initially requesting $50,000 in damages.
In the past, Mr. Matthews was permitted to bring “Kooy2” inside with him. However, new regulations became effective after a management change in late 2017.
The tribunal heard that despite having color images of “Kooy2” and being valid until February 2023, Mr. Matthews presented TransLink officials with assistance animal permits, but they informed him they were “insufficient.”
He has had anxiety and sadness since 2014, the tribunal was informed.
Following the passing of Mr. Matthews’ first assistance dog, Koochy Koo, “Kooy2” has been his constant companion for much of that period.
Since then, the dog has helped Mr. Matthews meet a “myriad” of people, get over various “hurdles,” and soothe “anxious emotions.”
The establishment claimed that its policies were in accordance with the liquor regulations, which state that the bar must provide a “safe environment” for customers.
Additionally, the tribunal heard that Mr. Matthews went to the bar twice a week and followed the regulations for a number of years by either sitting outside with “Kooy2” or sitting “just inside the bar so his dog could see him.”
Following an incident in 2020 in which the dog ran off and was almost run over, Mr. Matthews asked that “Kooy2” be let inside. This led to multiple run-ins with hotel officials.
Member Lumb determined that the pub’s refusal to let Mr. Matthews and “Kooy2” inside was not required for it to abide by the Liquor Act, and he was treated less favorably than someone who was not impaired.
According to his findings, which were made public on Friday, “Mr. Matthews was treated less favorably than a customer of the Pub who did not suffer from depression or anxiety and who did not rely on an assistance dog, and who sought to eat or drink inside the pub.”
Therefore, I conclude that Mr. Matthews was subjected to discrimination because of his reliance on an assistance dog.
Member Lumb refused to compel the bar to apologize to Mr. Matthews, nonetheless.
The staff is now aware that a TransLink Animal Assistance Pass is adequate, therefore he rejected to order that Mr. Matthews and “Kooy2” be permitted entry to the bar “in accordance with the regulations of an Assistance dog.”
“In my opinion, the adverse findings made against the respondent (Woombye Pub) in respect of its discriminatory conduct is sufficient recognition of the inappropriateness of that conduct,” Member Lumb said. “This is especially true where the conduct appeared to have been based on a genuinely formed but mistaken view of its entitlement to refuse entry inside the pub to Mr. Matthews with Kooy2.”
“The Respondent is now aware of the repercussions of its treatment of Mr. Matthews, especially in light of the Translink Animal Assistance Pass for Kooy2’s sufficiency. I don’t believe that any more orders are necessary.