Cork entertainment centre to pay €3,000 to blind boy for refusing entry to inflatable play area

The incident happened during his friend’s birthday party

Airtastic’s general manager claimed the inflatable play area was a large, constantly moving structure with uneven surfaces which is unlike a typical bouncy castle. File photo

An entertainment centre in Cork has been ordered to pay €3,000 compensation to a blind child who was refused entry to an inflatable play area during his friend’s birthday party.

The Workplace Relations Commission ruled that Airtastic Cork Limited, which operates an entertainment centre at Eastgate Retail Park, Little Island, Co Cork, discriminated against the 12-year-old boy on grounds of disability.

The company had denied it had discriminated against the child under the Equal Status Act 2000 and claimed the decision to refuse him entry to the inflatable play area on February 4, 2024, was based on health and safety grounds due to his decreased mobility.

However, the WRC said Airtastic had provided no evidence to support its claims that its decision was objectively justified.

In addition to awarding the boy compensation of €3,000, the WRC also directed the company to review its health and safety policies and training within three months to include reasonable accommodations it can put in place to fulfil its ethos of being an inclusive facility for all children.

The WRC said such measures should include but not be limited to engaging with the National Council for the Blind of Ireland.

Parents' testimony

The boy’s parents, who lodged a complaint with the WRC, claimed the entertainment centre had failed to provide him with reasonable accommodation.

The WRC heard that the boy, who has been blind since birth, had previously attended the Airtastic entertainment centre without any issue including hosting his own party in the inflatable play area in 2020.

The boy’s father told the WRC that his subsequent offer to arrange free staff training from an orientation officer in an effort to resolve the situation was rejected.

While his son used a cane, the father said he would not have brought it into the inflatable play area. He expressed deep frustration that his son was not allowed into the inflatable play area given he had been accommodated previously without any issue.

The boy’s mother accepted that her son was offered a game of bowling on the day as an alternative but she did not feel it was a suitable substitute for celebrating with his friends at the party. She felt they had no choice but to leave the venue.

The woman said she had explained that she “shadows” her son, including when he had previously visited the same centre, to ensure he is safe. “This is what we do on a daily basis,” she said.

Airtastic’s testimony

Airtastic’s general manager, Shane Liddy, told the WRC that staff had to make a safety assessment on the day and one worker had flagged a potential health and safety concern about the complainant when he entered the centre with a cane.

Mr Liddy claimed the inflatable play area was a large, constantly moving structure with uneven surfaces which is unlike a typical bouncy castle. 

He said it poses risks such as falls or collisions, particularly for someone with a visual impairment.

He argued the decision to refuse the boy entry to the area on the day was appropriate in the circumstances.

WRC ruling

WRC adjudication officer, Úna Glazier-Farmer, said a line of questioning by Airtastic about the alleged deterioration of the boy’s disability was “seriously inappropriate” due to the complete lack of medical evidence to support its claim, as well as Mr Liddy’s own evidence that he had no knowledge of the boy previously attending the centre.

The boy’s father had stated that his son had always been classified as legally blind and remarked: “You can’t be more blind.” Ms Glazier-Farmer said she was satisfied that the boy had discharged the burden of proof that he had been discriminated against due to his disability.

She noted that Airtastic had provided no supporting documentary evidence for its contention that he was refused entry to the inflatable play area on health and safety grounds.

The WRC official said she did not accept the company’s evidence that its ethos is inclusive of all children as the boy was refused entry for having a cane.

She observed that Airtastic’s website has a “competence and special assistance” section on its website which provides a list of conditions that limit a person taking part in activities.

Ms Glazier-Farmer said there was no evidence that the boy fell into any of the categories listed on the website or that he had completed a waiver.

She said there was also no evidence that the centre’s staff had sought to engage with the boy or his parents on the day to gather all the information about his “capability and personal health requirements”. 

Similarly, there was no evidence that the boy was a danger to himself or others, while there was no evidence from the centre’s insurer to support its position.

While Ms Glazier-Farmer accepted that Airtastic must have regard to the health and safety of its customers and staff, she said it was not a blanket excuse to make a unilateral decision to refuse the boy entry to the inflatable play area simply because he had a cane.

She said the centre had made general assumptions about the boy and his reduced mobility which were “entirely incorrect.”