Fleming v Halus & Ors (Sectarian Harassment/Religious Discrimination) [2003] NIFET 174_98 (6 January 2003)

Fleming v Halus & Ors (Sectarian Harassment/Religious Discrimination) [2003] NIFET 174_98 (6 January 2003)

The tribunal found that the applicant was subjected to sectarian harassment and was unlawfully discriminated against on grounds of his religion, particularly in relation to promotion, due to the lack of effective equal opportunities policies and the unfair promotion procedure adopted by the respondents.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] NIFET 174_98
Parties
Applicant: Malachy Fleming; Respondent: Kevin Halus; Respondent: Staff Sergeant Neely; Respondent: Ministry of Defence
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
06 January 2003
Procedural Posture
Fair Employment Tribunal / Final Decision After Full Hearing
Outcome
Applicant succeeded; tribunal found in favour of the applicant on both claims of sectarian harassment and religious discrimination.
Legal Topics
Sectarian Harassment, Religious Discrimination, Promotion Procedures, Equal Opportunities
Employment Law Equality Law Sectarian Harassment Religious Discrimination Promotion Procedures Equal Opportunities

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malachy Fleming

Applicant

Kevin Halus

Respondent

Staff Sergeant Neely

Respondent

Ministry of Defence

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Fair Employment Tribunal / Final Decision After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was subjected to sectarian harassment contrary to the Fair Employment and Treatment Order (Northern Ireland) 1998
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was unlawfully discriminated against on grounds of religious belief in relation to promotion

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that the applicant was subjected to sectarian harassment and was unlawfully discriminated against on grounds of his religion, particularly in relation to promotion, due to the lack of effective equal opportunities policies and the unfair promotion procedure adopted by the respondents.

Court Disposition

Applicant succeeded; tribunal found in favour of the applicant on both claims of sectarian harassment and religious discrimination.