Burrows v Abbey Labels & Packaging Ltd (Redundancy Payment) [2019] NIIT 03084_19IT (01 October 2019)

Burrows v Abbey Labels & Packaging Ltd (Redundancy Payment) [2019] NIIT 03084_19IT (01 October 2019)

The claimant was subjected to less favourable treatment than female comparators in breach of the CAPES policy, amounting to direct discrimination. The CAPES policy's facial hair requirement had a disparate impact on men and was not justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, constituting indirect discrimination. Victimisation claim failed as the chronology did not support causation.

Citation
[2019] NIIT 03084_19IT
Parties
Claimant: Gordon Thomas Downey; First Respondent: Garrath McCreery; Second Respondent: Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
01 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim of direct and indirect discrimination against second respondent upheld; claims against first respondent and victimisation dismissed.
Legal Topics
Sex Discrimination, Direct Discrimination, Indirect Discrimination, Victimisation, Uniform Policy, Health and Safety
Employment Law Equality Law Sex Discrimination Direct Discrimination Indirect Discrimination Victimisation Uniform Policy Health and Safety

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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gordon Thomas Downey

Claimant

Garrath McCreery

First Respondent

Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CAPES policy enforcement constituted direct sex discrimination against the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the CAPES policy constituted indirect sex discrimination against men
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was victimised for raising a grievance

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was subjected to less favourable treatment than female comparators in breach of the CAPES policy, amounting to direct discrimination. The CAPES policy's facial hair requirement had a disparate impact on men and was not justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, constituting indirect discrimination. Victimisation claim failed as the chronology did not support causation.

Court Disposition

Claim of direct and indirect discrimination against second respondent upheld; claims against first respondent and victimisation dismissed.

Orders

  • Declaration of discrimination against second respondent
  • Recommendation for respondent to review CAPES policy enforcement