Duffy v Firstsource Solutions Ltd [2015] NIIT 02256_14IT (06 August 2015)

Duffy v Firstsource Solutions Ltd [2015] NIIT 02256_14IT (06 August 2015)

The claimant was not disabled within the meaning of the DDA because, although he had a physical impairment with a substantial adverse effect at the material time, he failed to establish that the effect was long-term or likely to recur as required by the Act. Even if he had been disabled, the dismissal was due to failure to comply with absence procedures, and a non-disabled comparator would have been treated the same.

Citation
[2015] NIIT 02256_14IT
Parties
Claimant: Galvin Duffy; Respondent: Firstsource Solutions Ltd
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
06 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Definition of Disability, Dismissal, Absence Procedures, Comparators in Discrimination, Burden of Proof
Employment Law Disability Discrimination Definition of Disability Dismissal Absence Procedures Comparators in Discrimination 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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Galvin Duffy

Claimant

Firstsource Solutions Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 as amended
  2. 2 Whether the respondent unlawfully discriminated against the claimant on the ground of disability
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was treated less favourably than a non-disabled comparator

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was not disabled within the meaning of the DDA because, although he had a physical impairment with a substantial adverse effect at the material time, he failed to establish that the effect was long-term or likely to recur as required by the Act. Even if he had been disabled, the dismissal was due to failure to comply with absence procedures, and a non-disabled comparator would have been treated the same.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed