Hunter v Barnardo's [2017] NIIT 01779_16IT (03 March 2017)

Hunter v Barnardo's [2017] NIIT 01779_16IT (03 March 2017)

The tribunal found no credible evidence that the claimant was discriminated against on grounds of sexual orientation in the promotion process. The decision not to promote was based on interview performance and qualifications, not sexual orientation. The prior alleged incidents were either not proven or irrelevant to the promotion decision. The burden of proof did not shift to the respondent as no prima facie case of discrimination was established.

Citation
[2017] NIIT 01779_16IT
Parties
Claimant: Patrick Hunter; Respondent: Barnardo's; Respondent: Tanya Tweed
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
03 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Discrimination / Final Tribunal Decision
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Sexual Orientation Discrimination, Promotion, Burden of Proof, Recruitment, Unlawful Discrimination
Employment Law Equality Law Sexual Orientation Discrimination Promotion Burden of Proof Recruitment Unlawful Discrimination

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Hunter

Claimant

Barnardo's

Respondent

Tanya Tweed

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Discrimination / Final Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was unlawfully discriminated against on grounds of sexual orientation in the failure to promote him in May 2016.

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found no credible evidence that the claimant was discriminated against on grounds of sexual orientation in the promotion process. The decision not to promote was based on interview performance and qualifications, not sexual orientation. The prior alleged incidents were either not proven or irrelevant to the promotion decision. The burden of proof did not shift to the respondent as no prima facie case of discrimination was established.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed