Johnston v BT Plc [2010] NIIT 03935_01IT (26 February 2010)

Johnston v BT Plc [2010] NIIT 03935_01IT (26 February 2010)

The claimant's claims of indirect racial discrimination fail because ex-Cellnet engineers are not appropriate comparators due to materially different circumstances. Even if they were included, BT's requirements were justified as proportionate means to legitimate aims, including adherence to contractual entitlements...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] NIIT 03935_01IT
Parties
Claimant: Claimant (name not specified); Respondent: BT (British Telecommunications)
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
26 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Employment Discrimination / Final Judgment
Outcome
claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Indirect Discrimination, Racial Discrimination, Comparators, Justification, Equal Pay, TUPE (transfer of Undertakings)
Employment Law Discrimination Law Indirect Discrimination Racial Discrimination Comparators Justification Equal Pay TUPE (transfer of Undertakings)

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 7 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant (name not specified)

Claimant

BT (British Telecommunications)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Discrimination / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was subject to indirect racial discrimination under the 1997 Order
  2. 2 Whether comparators from Great Britain are permissible for the purposes of the 1997 Order
  3. 3 Whether the requirement or condition imposed by BT was justified

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's claims of indirect racial discrimination fail because ex-Cellnet engineers are not appropriate comparators due to materially different circumstances. Even if they were included, BT's requirements were justified as proportionate means to legitimate aims, including adherence to contractual entitlements and business processes. The disparate impact was not sufficient to outweigh justification, and cost considerations were permissible. The claims are dismissed.

Court Disposition

claims dismissed