Johansson v Fountain Street Community Development Association [2005] NIIT 311_03 (4 July 2005)

Johansson v Fountain Street Community Development Association [2005] NIIT 311_03 (4 July 2005)

The claimant's facial scarring did not amount to a severe disfigurement and thus did not constitute a disability under the Act. The respondent provided an adequate, non-discriminatory explanation for the appointment decision, based on interview performance and suitability for the role's key tasks, rebutting any...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] NIIT 311_03
Parties
Claimant: Mari Johansson; Respondent: Fountain Street Community Development Association
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
04 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal / Final Decision
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Race Discrimination, Recruitment Practices
Employment Law Equality Law Disability Discrimination Race Discrimination Recruitment Practices

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mari Johansson

Claimant

Fountain Street Community Development Association

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a disabled person by reason of a facial disfigurement
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was treated less favourably for a reason related to her disability in her failure to be appointed to the post of Youth Drugs Team Leader
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was discriminated against on the grounds of her race in her failure to be appointed to the post

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's facial scarring did not amount to a severe disfigurement and thus did not constitute a disability under the Act. The respondent provided an adequate, non-discriminatory explanation for the appointment decision, based on interview performance and suitability for the role's key tasks, rebutting any inference of race or disability discrimination.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed