Man with anxiety booted from pub because of his anxiety assistance dog wins thousands of dollars in compensation
- Pub in Sunshine Court hinterland broke anti-discrimination laws, tribunal ruled
- Raymond Matthews denied entry inside pub with his assistance dog five times
- Previously allowed inside Woombye Pub with dog named ‘Kooy2’ until rules changed in 2017
- Tribunal has ordered the pub to pay $8,000 compensation to Mr Matthews
A Queensland man with anxiety who was banned by his local watering hole from entering inside the premises accompanied by his assistance dog has been awarded compensation.
A tribunal ruled that Woombye Pub in the Sunshine Coast hinterland broke anti-discrimination laws and was ordered to pay Raymond Matthews $8,000 in damages.
The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal heard Mr Matthews was told by hotel staff on five occasions between late 2017 and September 2020 he couldn’t enter the premises with his assistance chihuahua named ‘Kooy2’ unless he produced an official guide dog, assistance dog or hearing dog identity card.
The Woombye local lodged a complaint with the Queensland Human Rights Commissioner after he was banned from the pub for one month on one of those occasions in September 2020 and initially sought $50,000 in compensation.
Mr Matthews was previously welcome to bring ‘Kooy2’ inside with him before a change in management in late 2017 resulted in new rules.
Raymond Matthews (pictured with assistance dog Kooy2) has won a discrimination case against his local watering home
The tribunal heard Mr Matthews produced TransLink assistance animal passes but was told by staff they were ‘insufficient’, despite featuring colour photos of ‘Kooy2’ and being valid to February 2023.
The tribunal heard he has suffered from depression and anxiety since 2014.
‘Kooy2′ has been Mr Matthews’ constant companion for much of that time following the death of his original assistance dog named Koochy Koo.
The dog has since introduced Mr Matthews to a ‘myriad’ of people, got him over many ‘hurdles’ and can calm Mr Matthews ‘anxious states’.
The venue argued its rules complied with liquor laws which stipulate the pub must be a ‘safe environment’ for patrons.
The tribunal also heard Mr Matthews attended the pub two nights a week and complied with the rules for several years by either sitting outside with ‘Kooy2’ or sitting ‘just inside the pub so his dog could see him’.
Mr Matthews requested ‘Kooy2’ be allowed inside after an incident in 2020 where the dog ran off and was almost run over, sparking several runs-in with hotel staff.
Woombye Pub in Queensland’s Sunshine Coast hinterland (pictured) has been ordered to pay $8000 in compensation to Mr Matthews
Member Lumb found its refusal to allow entry to Mr Matthews and ‘Kooy2’ was not necessary to comply with the Liquor Act and ruled that the pub treated him less favourably than another person without such impairment.
‘In my view, Mr Matthews was treated less favourably than a customer of the Pub who did not suffer from depression or anxiety and who did not rely on an assistance dog, and sought to eat or drink inside the pub,’ he stated in his findings released on Friday.
‘Consequently, I find that Mr Matthews was discriminated against on the basis of his reliance on an assistance dog.’
However, Member Lumb declined to force the pub to issue an apology to Mr Matthews.
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal ruled that Raymond Matthews (pictured in 2014 with previous assistance dog Koochy Koo) was discriminated against
He also declined to order that Mr Matthews and ‘Kooy2’ be given access to the pub ‘in accordance with the rules of an Assistance dog’ as staff are now aware that a TransLink Animal Assistance Pass is sufficient.
‘In my view, the adverse findings made against the respondent (Woombye Pub) in respect of its discriminatory conduct is sufficient recognition of the inappropriateness of that conduct, particularly where the conduct appeared to have been based on a genuinely formed but erroneous view of its entitlement to refuse entry inside the pub to Mr Matthews with Kooy2,’ Member Lumb stated.
‘The Respondent is now apprised of the consequences of its treatment of Mr Matthews, particularly in the context of the sufficiency of the Translink Animal Assistance Pass for Kooy2. I do not consider that any further order is warranted.’
***
Read more at DailyMail.co.uk