Vegetarian who mistook pâté for hummus loses religious discrimination case against Galway cheesemongers
The woman claimed her vegetarianism was linked to Hinduism, and that a lack of clear labelling amounted to discrimination on religious grounds
A vegetarian customer who claimed she was discriminated against on religious grounds after taking a sample of pâté from a display she mistook for hummus at Sheridan’s Cheesemongers has had her case thrown out by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC).
Vanessa Maria Corral Fernandez brought the complaint against Sheridan’s Cheesemongers Limited under the Equal Status Act 2000, claiming that she had been denied the opportunity to make an informed choice.
The incident occurred on June 6, 2025 at one of the Galway food retailer’s outlets. Ms Corral Fernandez told a WRC adjudication hearing that she had approached a food-sampling display after seeing signs advertising hummus, pesto, and olives.
She took a sample from the counter but, before she could consume it, a member of staff intervened to inform her that the food was in fact pâté.
Ms Corral Fernandez accepted that she did not eat the meat product, but told the WRC that the mere thought that she might have consumed meat caused her to feel “sick to her stomach”.
While her initial complaint had focused on signage and food regulation, she submitted ahead of the remote hearing that her vegetarianism was directly linked to spiritual practices aligned with Hinduism, contending that the lack of clear labelling amounted to direct discrimination on religious grounds.
Kevin Sheridan, representing Sheridan’s Cheesemongers Limited, denied that any discrimination had taken place.
The company stated that the sampling board had featured pâté served on crackers, with pots of the product displayed right beside the tasting area. The signage referring to hummus, olives, and pesto was part of a completely separate promotional offer and was never intended to describe the sampling platter.
The company pointed out that its employee had stepped in to alert the customer before she ate anything, and noted that Ms Corral Fernandez only revealed she was vegetarian after she was told the product was meat.
Mr Sheridan told the hearing that the display had been presented to the public generally, no member of staff knew or suspected what religious beliefs the complainant held, and the dispute was at most a customer service disagreement over promotional signage.
In her decision, WRC adjudication officer Christina Ryan noted that while vegetarianism can form part of a person’s religious or spiritual practice, the remit of the WRC was not to enforce food-sampling regulations or arbitrate customer service standards.
Ms Ryan found that the complainant had been treated no differently than any other customer, highlighting that staff had actively prevented her from eating the meat and had no prior knowledge of her religious beliefs.
Ruling that there was no evidential link between the encounter and the protected ground relied upon, Ms Ryan held that Ms Corral Fernandez had failed to establish a prima facie case and dismissed the complaint as not well founded.