Subway in Dublin ordered to pay compensation to blind paralympic athlete

Gordon Deegan

The operator of a Subway and Circle K on Dublin’s Grafton Street has been ordered to pay €500 compensation to blind Paralympian, Nadine Lattimore.

It is the fifth ‘discrimination’ payout that Ms Lattimore has received across 2025 and 2024 concerning cases she has taken to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) under the Equal Status Act, and she has now received a cumulative €20,500.

Ms Lattimore, who represented Ireland in track and field in the London Paralympic Games in 2012, is blind and has been a guide dog user for 16 years.

Ms Lattimore alleged that she was discriminated against in accessing the service provided by Circle K and Subway operator, Ard Services Ltd, at 49 Grafton Street on February 14th of this year.

The Circle K retail premises house a Subway sandwich shop on the first floor and at hearing, Ard Services Ltd rejected that it discriminated against Ms Lattimore in the provision of its service to the public.

On the day, Ms Lattimore was accompanied by her five-year-old son and was also being guided by her guide dog Pilot.

Ms Lattimore walked straight through the downstairs of the premises and went up the stairs to the first floor, where a Subway sandwich shop was operating.

While at the queue at the hot deli counter with Pilot, Ms Lattimore was approached by a member of staff and Ms Lattimore gathered that the staff member wanted Pilot moved.

Ms Lattimore did not understand what the problem was, and it was not clear to which corner the dog should be removed to.

Ms Lattimore’s son was seemingly sitting in a corner table and there was also a corner behind where Ms Lattimore stood waiting to have her order taken.

After viewing CCTV footage of the incident, Ms McGrath stated that “looking at the footage myself, it is clear to me that Pilot may well have positioned himself slightly awkwardly for people coming up the stairs”.

She said, however, Ms Lattimore is clear that at no time was it stated that her dog was creating an access/egress hindrance, and in any event, Ard Services Ltd never made this argument.

Ms McGrath said: “At best, the approach made by a member of staff was clumsy. At worst, it was a misunderstanding of the nature of the relationship between the Complainant and her Guide dog.”

Ms McGrath stated that Ms Lattimore “was greatly upset for a number of reasons”.

She said that, in particular, Ms Lattimore feels that the obligation is on the service provider to ensure that its staff are better trained to understand that a guide dog is working for and on behalf of the blind person.

Ms McGrath stated: “The dog is not an accessory that can be put down and picked up at will. The dog gently guides the Complainant through every step on her way."

Ms McGrath stated that the suggestion here seemed to be that the dog should be either separated from Ms Lattimore or pushed into a corner where he could not work for her.

Ms McGrath pointed out: “Both alternatives demonstrated, she says, a profound ignorance of the role of the guide dog.”

Ms McGrath stated that she knows that Ms Lattimore “finds it very frustrating that whilst she is dealing with the profound disability of having no sight, she must also take passive aggressive remarks and suggestions from people with no insight into her condition and into the special relationship with her guide dog”.

Ms McGrath stated that “compounding the issue for her was the fact that her five-year-old son was there to see and witness the Complainant’s disability somehow being made an issue of”.

Ms McGrath stated that in the circumstances, Ms Lattimore escalated the matter to the manager who proceeded to tell Ms Lattimore that there was a concern about the dog making other customers fearful.

The WRC Adjudicator said: "My sense is that this was a belated attempt to justify what had happened.”

Ms McGrath stated that she knows that Ard Services Ltd greatly regrets that Ms Lattimore was made to feel awkward or discriminated against.

She said: “I appreciate that there is a significant effort put into ensuring that there is DEI (Diversity Equity and Inclusion) training with the workforce. However, the HR witness did confirm that the role of the guide dog is not given any particular coverage.”

As part of her order, Ms Lattimore has directed that Ard Services take the necessary steps to positively educate its workforce on the role of the guide dog for the visually impaired.

Last month, TESCO Ireland was ordered to pay €6,000 to Ms Lattimore for discriminating against her when initially refused entry at TESCO stores at Adamstown on June 3rd 2024, and at Spencer Dock and Parnell Street on July 16th 2024.

In her other successful discrimination claims in July 2024, the WRC ordered Dealz to pay Ms Lattimore €7,000 compensation when she was challenged at a Dealz store at the Ilac Centre in Dublin in June 2023.

In September 2024, the WRC ordered German discount retailer, Lidl, to pay €2,000 compensation to Ms Lattimore after she was asked to move away from a bakery section in one of its stores because of her guide dog in February 2024.

In December 2024, the Eddie Rockets chain of restaurants was ordered to pay €5,000 compensation to Ms Lattimore after she was left ‘humiliated and upset’ when a worker refused her request to sit elsewhere in one of its restaurants.

In a separate decision published last month, Ms Lattimore failed in an equality claim at the WRC against a convenience store in Dublin, NM Palmerston Retail Investments Ltd, trading as Centra on Parnell Street in Dublin 1.