Tayto Park ordered to pay €500 after asking a disabled woman with dog to leave the park

TAYTO PARK HAS been ordered to pay €500 compensation to a disabled woman who was asked to leave the theme park because her assistance dog was not registered with a recognised charity.

The Workplace Relations Commission ruled that the woman had been discriminated against on grounds of disability by the operators of the theme park and zoo (now known as Emerald Park).

The complainant told the WRC that she e-mailed Tayto Park prior to attending the Co Meath venue with her family and assistance dog on 21 July 2020.

Although the woman is not eligible for a trained guide dog from any charity, the WRC heard that she had trained the dog to assist her with panic attacks and other mental health issues.

However, the animal is not registered with Assistance Dogs International (ADI).

She claimed no questions were asked about her dog or its vaccinations when she picked up her tickets on arriving at the theme park and was never informed about any policy regarding assistance dogs.

However, some hours later, she was approached by the park manager and a security officer and asked if the dog was registered with ADI.

The woman became so stressed by the situation that she experienced a medical episode before going to the park’s reception area to make a complaint.

She claimed the manager called her assistance dog a “fake” and denied that he was discriminating against her.

Although she was given a refund, she claimed it did not undo the hurt, stress and emotional upset caused by such “blatant discrimination and unjust and prejudicial treatment”.

She told the WRC that she felt she was singled out as her disabilities are invisible and that her group were made to feel uncomfortable, intimidated and basically told to leave.

The woman said she would have understood if there had been some obvious issues.

She claimed she was discriminated against in breach of the Equal Status Act 2000 on grounds of disability as the respondent had failed to provide reasonable accommodation for her visit to the park.

In reply, Tayto Park argued the complainant had failed to demonstrate either any direct or indirect discrimination.

It pointed out that it welcomes service animals provided they meet the requirements of its additional needs policy which is available on the Tayto Park website.

It also stipulates that any dog or other animal allowed into the park must be fully trained, vaccinated and registered.

In addition, registration and vaccination records must be presented on entry to the park.

A representative of Tayto Park claimed emotional support dogs are not recognised under Irish law and consequently are not allowed on the premises.

He pointed out that they also do not receive the same level of training as service or assistance dogs.

Tayto Park said it had a duty of care to all its visitors, while dogs potentially pose a threat to guests and animals in the park.

It claimed the manager received reports on the day of a dog, who was straining on its leash, reacting to visitors.

The manager said the dog had also been seen defecating in multiple areas on a few occasions, which he had never witnessed before with any other trained assistance dog.

WRC adjudication officer, Davnet O’Driscoll, said the complainant has medical conditions which are recognised as disabilities under legislation.

O’Driscoll noted the woman’s doctor had requested reasonable accommodation so she can use an assistance dog to support her with sensory issues and managing intense emotions.

The WRC adjudicator found that Tayto Park had not adduced any evidence that the woman’s dog was a risk or endangering the safety of any member of the public.

O’Driscoll acknowledged that it was perfectly reasonable for Tayto Park to request that service dogs be registered where possible as well as being vaccinated and to ban dogs from certain areas because of concerns for the welfare of other animals in the park.

She observed that there is a substantial cost in training dogs registered with ADI which is not accessible to other disabled individuals who do not qualify for a guide dog or assistance dog from Irish charities.

In her ruling, O’Driscoll said Tayto Park had failed to reasonably accommodate the woman’s disability by taking into account her specific needs and facilitating her with accessing the venue.

Awarding the complainant compensation of €500, she said the legislation requires venues to provide special treatment or facilities where appropriate to allow access for people with a disability.