Galbraith v Bombardier [2015] NIIT 00057_15IT (09 November 2015)

Galbraith v Bombardier [2015] NIIT 00057_15IT (09 November 2015)

The tribunal found that the respondent did not fail to make reasonable adjustments as the duty only arose when sufficient evidence of the claimant's dyslexia was provided in October 2014. Prior to that, the respondent could not reasonably have known of the disability. The respondent acted properly and responsibly once informed. The claim of victimisation was also rejected as there was no evidence of less favourable treatment for raising a grievance. The claim was lodged within the time limit as a continuing act, but the substantive claims failed on the facts.

Citation
[2015] NIIT 00057_15IT
Parties
Claimant: Jordan Galbraith; Respondent: Bombardier
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
09 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal / Final Judgment
Outcome
All claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Reasonable Adjustments, Victimisation, Time Limits, Burden of Proof
Employment Law Disability Discrimination Reasonable Adjustments Victimisation Time Limits 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jordan Galbraith

Claimant

Bombardier

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments for the claimant's dyslexia under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was victimised for raising a grievance related to his disability
  3. 3 Whether the claim was lodged within the statutory time limit or should be treated as a continuing act

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that the respondent did not fail to make reasonable adjustments as the duty only arose when sufficient evidence of the claimant's dyslexia was provided in October 2014. Prior to that, the respondent could not reasonably have known of the disability. The respondent acted properly and responsibly once informed. The claim of victimisation was also rejected as there was no evidence of less favourable treatment for raising a grievance. The claim was lodged within the time limit as a continuing act, but the substantive claims failed on the facts.

Court Disposition

All claims dismissed