The evidence of a McDonald’s security guard who denied calling a man a “queer” and said he “didn’t know the meaning of that” has been ruled credible by a tribunal as it dismissed an equality claim by the customer.
The customer, Paul Cronin, was found by a Workplace Relations Commission Adjudicator to have “completely initiated” an altercation with a security guard at the restaurant on 24 January 2025, when he said he was ejected from the premises.
The security guard, Alfred Edward, told an equality hearing last month that Mr Cronin called him a “black monkey” during the row – an allegation the WRC made no specific ruling on in a decision just published.
The tribunal has rejected a complaint brought by Mr Cronin against McDonalds franchisee Aarval Ltd, alleging discrimination on the grounds of homosexuality – a claim denied by the business.
Mr Cronin, who identifies as gay, claimed last month that Mr Edward threw him out of the restaurant because he was “prejudiced” and “completely biased” towards him.
He told the tribunal last month he was sitting in the restaurant having a coffee, and asked a female customer to lower her voice while speaking on the phone. The woman later gave him a “dirty look” and, when he made a phone call of his own, told him he was being “very loud”, he said.
He said he later went to the security man “to explain the interaction with the lady”.
“He wouldn’t discuss the matter. I found him quite dismissive. Because of this I asked him could I speak to a manager. He told me, abruptly, no, and it was at this point he called me a queer,” Mr Cronin said.
Mr Edward was “shouting at me, very, very aggressive”, Mr Cronin said. He said he then told Mr Edward he would record him on his phone and took out his device to do so.
“Straight away, he grabbed the phone out of my hand,” Mr Cronin said. He said Mr Edward returned it and then asked him to leave the premises.
He said he told the security guard that he “would leave”, but Mr Edward then “grabbed me by the shirt [and] pushed me out the door, where I fell to the ground”.
Mr Cronin then phoned 999 and gave an “immediate statement” to gardaí, he added.
Under cross-examination, he agreed with the restaurant operator’s solicitor, Robert Laffan, that he had emailed McDonalds Ireland customer services two days on from the incident and made “no reference to discriminatory language”.
Asked how Mr Edward could have known what his sexual identity was, Mr Cronin said: “I think he would have known by my demeanour – I think it’s reasonable by objective interpretation he would have assumed I was gay.”
Mr Edward said in his evidence that he had no awareness of Mr Cronin’s sexuality.
“What he called me was: ‘You black monkey,’” Mr Edward said.
He said Mr Cronin took issue with his handling of the situation between the complainant and the female customer and had claimed the guard “sided with the lady”.
“I said this issue was settled… let’s forget about this whole thing. He says no, he doesn’t want to forget it,” he said.
Mr Laffan asked Mr Edward whether he had called Mr Cronin “a queer”.
“I don’t know even the meaning of that. I don’t call him such a name. I’m just hearing it for the first time in my life,” Mr Edward said.
While cross-examining Mr Edward, Mr Cronin said: “You said there I called you a black monkey. Why on earth would I call you that, such a racist term?”
Intervening, adjudicator Pat Brady told Mr Cronin he was being argumentative and said that the complainant was to frame his remarks as questions.
In his decision, Mr Brady wrote that Mr Cronin’s argument was that Mr Edward should have known he was gay because he “came across as gay”.
He called this a “feeble suggestion”.
Mr Edward’s evidence “was credible” and there was “absolutely no basis” for attributing any knowledge of Mr Cronin’s sexuality beyond the claimant’s “fanciful speculation”, he wrote.
“There was no corroborating evidence apart from the complainant’s assertion that the words were used. I find that they were not,” he added.
He wrote that his view was fortified by the lack of any reference to alleged discrimination or that homosexuality might have been a factor when Mr Cronin wrote to McDonalds about the incident two days later.
“There was an altercation, but it was completely initiated by the complainant for reasons best known to himself,” Mr Brady wrote.
He said it was a “trivial issue of the loudness of a person making a phone call” and “a veritable storm in a tea cup, or on this occasion, a coffee cup”.
“The complainant demonstrated very poor judgment in doing so and should have left well enough alone,” Mr Brady added, dismissing the equality complaint.
