McLaughlin v Charles Hurst Limited [2016] NIIT 00083_15IT (21 December 2016)

McLaughlin v Charles Hurst Limited [2016] NIIT 00083_15IT (21 December 2016)

The tribunal found that the respondents failed in their duty to make reasonable adjustments for the claimant by not properly considering or implementing reduced working hours in a timely and appropriate manner, focusing instead on business needs and flexible working rather than disability-related adjustments. However, the majority found that the claimant was not discriminated against, victimised, or harassed in relation to her suspension, placement on statutory sick pay, or removal of her company car, as these actions were not shown to be on the grounds of disability and would have been applied to a non-disabled comparator in similar circumstances.

Citation
[2016] NIIT 00083_15IT
Parties
Claimant: Marie-Claire McLaughlin; Respondent: Charles Hurst Limited; Respondent: Rosemary Chapman; Respondent: Andrew Gilmore
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
21 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal (disability Discrimination) / Final Decision After Consolidated Hearing
Outcome
Partial success for claimant
Legal Topics
Reasonable Adjustments, Direct Discrimination, Victimisation, Harassment, Statutory Sick Pay, Suspension From Work
Employment Law Disability Discrimination Reasonable Adjustments Direct Discrimination Victimisation Harassment Statutory Sick Pay Suspension From Work

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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marie-Claire McLaughlin

Claimant

Charles Hurst Limited

Respondent

Rosemary Chapman

Respondent

Andrew Gilmore

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal (disability Discrimination) / Final Decision After Consolidated Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents failed in their duty to make reasonable adjustments for the claimant under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was discriminated against, victimised, or harassed on the grounds of disability in relation to suspension, statutory sick pay, and removal of company car

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that the respondents failed in their duty to make reasonable adjustments for the claimant by not properly considering or implementing reduced working hours in a timely and appropriate manner, focusing instead on business needs and flexible working rather than disability-related adjustments. However, the majority found that the claimant was not discriminated against, victimised, or harassed in relation to her suspension, placement on statutory sick pay, or removal of her company car, as these actions were not shown to be on the grounds of disability and would have been applied to a non-disabled comparator in similar circumstances.

Court Disposition

Partial success for claimant

Orders

  • Respondents found to have failed in their duty to make reasonable adjustments for the claimant.
  • No finding of discrimination, victimisation, or harassment in respect of suspension, statutory sick pay, or removal of company car.