Rogan v Mercury Security Management Ltd... [2017] NIIT 01937_16IT (28 September 2017)

Rogan v Mercury Security Management Ltd... [2017] NIIT 01937_16IT (28 September 2017)

The claimant failed to prove, by direct evidence or inference, that the alleged incidents constituted a continuing discriminatory state of affairs or that she was treated less favourably on grounds of pregnancy. The tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence and found no unlawful discrimination or detrimental treatment. The burden of proof did not shift to the respondent.

Citation
[2017] NIIT 01937_16IT
Parties
Claimant: Rachael Rogan; Respondent: Mercury Security Management Ltd
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
28 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Discrimination / Final Tribunal Decision
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Pregnancy Discrimination, Maternity Rights, Detrimental Treatment, Burden of Proof, Limitation Period
Employment Law Discrimination Law Pregnancy Discrimination Maternity Rights Detrimental Treatment Burden of Proof Limitation Period

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 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rachael Rogan

Claimant

Mercury Security Management Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Discrimination / Final Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent discriminated against the claimant on the ground of pregnancy contrary to Article 5A of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976
  2. 2 Whether the claims were brought within the limitation period and if not, whether it is just and equitable to extend time
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was subjected to detrimental treatment for a reason relating to pregnancy, childbirth, maternity or maternity leave contrary to Article 70C(1) & 70C(2)(a) of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to prove, by direct evidence or inference, that the alleged incidents constituted a continuing discriminatory state of affairs or that she was treated less favourably on grounds of pregnancy. The tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence and found no unlawful discrimination or detrimental treatment. The burden of proof did not shift to the respondent.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed