A v B [2009] NIIT 2016_07IT (03 February 2009)

A v B [2009] NIIT 2016_07IT (03 February 2009)

The tribunal found that the second-named respondent's conduct was unwanted, of a sexual nature, and gender-specific, amounting to direct sex discrimination and sexual harassment under the 1976 Order. The burden of proof shifted to the respondent, who provided no explanation. The claimant was discriminated against and harassed on grounds of sex. The first-named respondent settled with the claimant; the second-named respondent was found personally liable.

Citation
[2009] NIIT 2016_07IT
Parties
Claimant: A; First Named Respondent: B; Second Named Respondent: C
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
03 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal (sex Discrimination) / Final Decision After Hearing and Partial Settlement
Outcome
Claim against second-named respondent upheld; claim against first-named respondent adjourned pending settlement implementation.
Legal Topics
Sex Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, Vicarious Liability, Burden of Proof, Industrial Tribunal Procedure
Employment Law Equality Law Sex Discrimination Sexual Harassment Vicarious Liability Burden of Proof Industrial Tribunal Procedure

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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Claimant

B

First Named Respondent

C

Second Named Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal (sex Discrimination) / Final Decision After Hearing and Partial Settlement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was subjected to direct sex discrimination by the second-named respondent
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was subjected to sexual harassment by the second-named respondent
  3. 3 Whether the first-named respondent was vicariously liable for the acts of the second-named respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that the second-named respondent's conduct was unwanted, of a sexual nature, and gender-specific, amounting to direct sex discrimination and sexual harassment under the 1976 Order. The burden of proof shifted to the respondent, who provided no explanation. The claimant was discriminated against and harassed on grounds of sex. The first-named respondent settled with the claimant; the second-named respondent was found personally liable.

Court Disposition

Claim against second-named respondent upheld; claim against first-named respondent adjourned pending settlement implementation.

Orders

  • Declaration that the claimant was discriminated against on grounds of sex by the second-named respondent.
  • Declaration that the claimant was subjected to sexual harassment by the second-named respondent.