Dunne v Michael McCurley [2009] NIIT 817_09IT (18 September 2009)

Dunne v Michael McCurley [2009] NIIT 817_09IT (18 September 2009)

The tribunal found that the claimant was not treated less favourably than male tutors on grounds of sex, nor was she subjected to sexual harassment by the respondents. The evidence did not support the claimant's allegations, and her account was found to be exaggerated and not corroborated by witnesses. The respondents' actions were not motivated by the claimant's sex, and the incidents did not amount to harassment under the statutory definition. The claim was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2009] NIIT 817_09IT
Parties
Claimant: Catherine Dunne; Respondent: Michael McCurley; Respondent: Stranmillis College
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
18 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Employment Discrimination / Final Tribunal Decision
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Sex Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, Statutory Grievance Procedures, Vicarious Liability, Time Limits
Employment Law Equality Law Sex Discrimination Sexual Harassment Statutory Grievance Procedures Vicarious Liability Time Limits

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Catherine Dunne

Claimant

Michael McCurley

Respondent

Stranmillis College

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Discrimination / Final Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents discriminated against the claimant on grounds of sex contrary to the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 by various alleged acts
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was subjected to sexual harassment under Article 6A of the 1976 Order
  3. 3 Whether the claims were brought within statutory time limits or should be extended

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that the claimant was not treated less favourably than male tutors on grounds of sex, nor was she subjected to sexual harassment by the respondents. The evidence did not support the claimant's allegations, and her account was found to be exaggerated and not corroborated by witnesses. The respondents' actions were not motivated by the claimant's sex, and the incidents did not amount to harassment under the statutory definition. The claim was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed