Mimna v Department for Employment & Le... [2012] NIIT 02046_12IT (18 October 2012)

Mimna v Department for Employment & Le... [2012] NIIT 02046_12IT (18 October 2012)

The first-named respondent failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments for the claimant, who had a known cardiac disability, by not providing proper notice and opportunity for representation at the meeting on 20 October 2011, thereby causing injury to feelings. There was insufficient evidence to support claims of discrimination or failure to make reasonable adjustments regarding the alleged learning disability, CCTV installation, suspension, or grievance process. Claims against the other respondents were dismissed.

Citation
[2012] NIIT 02046_12IT
Parties
Claimant: Roisin O’Neill; First Named Respondent: Barnado’s; Second Named Respondent: Diane Winters; Third Named Respondent: Kerry-Ann Van Niekirk; Fourth Named Respondent: Dean Taylor Pogue
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
18 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal / Final Decision After Full Hearing
Outcome
Claim against first-named respondent upheld in part; all other claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Reasonable Adjustments, Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Injury to Feelings, Grievance Procedures, Burden of Proof
Employment Law Disability Discrimination Reasonable Adjustments Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Injury to Feelings Grievance Procedures Burden of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roisin O’Neill

Claimant

Barnado’s

First Named Respondent

Diane Winters

Second Named Respondent

Kerry-Ann Van Niekirk

Third Named Respondent

Dean Taylor Pogue

Fourth Named Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal / Final Decision After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant had a learning disability within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 at the relevant times
  2. 2 Whether the respondents’ actions in failing to commission an Occupational Health report, installing CCTV, conducting the meeting on 20 October 2011, suspending the claimant, or handling her grievance amounted to unlawful discrimination or a failure to make reasonable adjustments

Ratio Decidendi

The first-named respondent failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments for the claimant, who had a known cardiac disability, by not providing proper notice and opportunity for representation at the meeting on 20 October 2011, thereby causing injury to feelings. There was insufficient evidence to support claims of discrimination or failure to make reasonable adjustments regarding the alleged learning disability, CCTV installation, suspension, or grievance process. Claims against the other respondents were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim against first-named respondent upheld in part; all other claims dismissed.

Orders

  • First-named respondent to pay £5,000.00 compensation for injury to feelings to the claimant.
  • All other claims, including those against the second, third, and fourth-named respondents, are dismissed.