McCullough v South Eastern Education & Libr... [2010] NIFET 127_08FET (24 June 2010)

McCullough v South Eastern Education & Libr... [2010] NIFET 127_08FET (24 June 2010)

The claimant was unfairly dismissed by the first respondent due to failure to comply with statutory dismissal and disciplinary procedures. The first respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments for the claimant's disability, contrary to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. There was no direct discrimination...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] NIFET 127_08FET
Parties
Claimant: Marian McCullough; First Respondent: South Eastern Education & Library Board; Second Respondent: John Mason; Third Respondent: Dorothy Morrow; Fourth Respondent: Lynette Bailie
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
24 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Fair Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Partly allowed, partly dismissed
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Disability Discrimination, Reasonable Adjustments, Victimisation, Sex Discrimination, Religious Discrimination, Procedural Fairness
Employment Law Discrimination Law Unfair Dismissal Disability Discrimination Reasonable Adjustments Victimisation Sex Discrimination Religious Discrimination +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marian McCullough

Claimant

South Eastern Education & Library Board

First Respondent

John Mason

Second Respondent

Dorothy Morrow

Third Respondent

Lynette Bailie

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Fair Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the claimant unfairly dismissed?
  2. 2 Did the respondent fail to make reasonable adjustments under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995?
  3. 3 Was the claimant directly discriminated against on grounds of disability?

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was unfairly dismissed by the first respondent due to failure to comply with statutory dismissal and disciplinary procedures. The first respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments for the claimant's disability, contrary to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. There was no direct discrimination or disability-related discrimination, nor victimisation, on the facts. Claims of sex and religious discrimination were withdrawn and dismissed.

Court Disposition

Partly allowed, partly dismissed

Orders

  • Claims of unlawful discrimination on grounds of sex and religious belief/political opinion dismissed following withdrawal.
  • Claimant found to have been unfairly dismissed by the first respondent.