A solo diner in the market for a hotpot has taken action against a restaurant after he learned he would have to pay the price of two customers if he wanted the dish.
While he accepted Red Hill did not decline to provide hotpot to him because he was single or that he was treated less favourably for that reason, he claimed the charging policy had the effect of treating him differently and was indirectly discriminatory.
But the restaurant denied its actions were discriminatory and said the policy applied to everyone and was not limited to customers with a particular marital status.
In its decision, which was made on the papers, the tribunal said the essence of the claim was about the minimum charge for a serving of hotpot and how large that serving should be.
“If anyone wants to order that quantity of hotpot for that price, there is no prohibition preventing any diner from doing so. Had Red Hill simply set out the price for hotpot, no exception could be taken.”
The tribunal found any discrimination alleged was therefore merely theoretical and did not give rise to material disadvantage.
Zhang had claimed the restaurant’s policy amounted to indirect marital status discrimination.
Is this man unaware of the concept of friends?
Minimum of two does not mean two married people or two people of opposite gender or whatever else this guy came up with to complain about the restaurant wanting to not have to shlep out all the hotpot stuff just for one lone diner’s worth of money. He should have just put that salt into the soup.
