Quigley v Department for Communities [2016] NIIT 02191_15IT (23 September 2016)

Quigley v Department for Communities [2016] NIIT 02191_15IT (23 September 2016)

The claimant was not placed at a substantial disadvantage by the requirement to work at the Tower because reasonable alternatives (modifying hours, neck exercises, breaks during travel) could have mitigated the effects. The Department was not under a duty to transfer the claimant as a reasonable adjustment. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] NIIT 02191_15IT
Parties
Claimant: Wayne Quigley; Respondent: Department for Communities
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
23 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Reasonable Adjustments, Disability Discrimination Act, Burden of Proof, Transfer Requests, Comparators, Substantial Disadvantage
Employment Law Disability Discrimination Reasonable Adjustments Disability Discrimination Act Burden of Proof Transfer Requests Comparators Substantial Disadvantage

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wayne Quigley

Claimant

Department for Communities

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the requirement to work at the Tower place the claimant at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled comparators?
  2. 2 Did the Department come under a duty to take steps to transfer the claimant as a reasonable adjustment?
  3. 3 Was the Department's duty to make reasonable adjustments triggered?

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was not placed at a substantial disadvantage by the requirement to work at the Tower because reasonable alternatives (modifying hours, neck exercises, breaks during travel) could have mitigated the effects. The Department was not under a duty to transfer the claimant as a reasonable adjustment. The burden of proof for substantial disadvantage remained with the claimant.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed