Riordan v Department for Regional Develo... [2010] NIIT 01200_10IT (23 March 2011)

Riordan v Department for Regional Develo... [2010] NIIT 01200_10IT (23 March 2011)

The tribunal found that the requirement for subject-specificity in the application form was applied equally to all applicants, regardless of age, and did not place older applicants at a particular disadvantage. The claimant failed to prove comparative disadvantage or that the requirement was a significant burden. The claim of indirect discrimination was therefore not well-founded and dismissed.

Citation
[2010] NIIT 01200_10IT
Parties
Claimant: Diarmuid Riordan; Respondent: Department for Regional Development
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
23 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Age Discrimination, Indirect Discrimination, Recruitment Eligibility Criteria
Employment Law Anti Discrimination Law Age Discrimination Indirect Discrimination Recruitment Eligibility Criteria

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Diarmuid Riordan

Claimant

Department for Regional Development

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's recruitment criteria constituted indirect age discrimination under the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006
  2. 2 Whether the requirement to specify subject passes in the Senior Certificate disadvantaged older applicants

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that the requirement for subject-specificity in the application form was applied equally to all applicants, regardless of age, and did not place older applicants at a particular disadvantage. The claimant failed to prove comparative disadvantage or that the requirement was a significant burden. The claim of indirect discrimination was therefore not well-founded and dismissed.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed