Lappin v Hermes Parcelnet Limited (Discrimination - Religious Belief/ Political opinion) [2019] NIFET 00113_18FET (20 November 2019)

Lappin v Hermes Parcelnet Limited (Discrimination - Religious Belief/ Political opinion) [2019] NIFET 00113_18FET (20 November 2019)

The claimant failed to discharge the primary burden of proof. There was no evidence beyond a difference in outcome and religion to suggest discrimination. The real reason for non-appointment was the claimant's weaker interview performance compared to other candidates. The decision was not due to religious discrimination.

Citation
[2019] NIFET 00113
Parties
Claimant: Kevin Lappin; Respondent: Hermes Parcelnet Limited
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
20 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Employment Discrimination / Final Tribunal Decision
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Religious Discrimination, Burden of Proof, Recruitment Practices, Comparators in Discrimination Claims
Employment Law Discrimination Law Religious Discrimination Burden of Proof Recruitment Practices Comparators in Discrimination Claims

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin Lappin

Claimant

Hermes Parcelnet Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Discrimination / Final Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent discriminated against the claimant on grounds of religious belief in the recruitment for Field Manager
  2. 2 Whether Curtis Brown was an appropriate comparator
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's reason for not appointing the claimant was based on religious belief

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to discharge the primary burden of proof. There was no evidence beyond a difference in outcome and religion to suggest discrimination. The real reason for non-appointment was the claimant's weaker interview performance compared to other candidates. The decision was not due to religious discrimination.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed