Saad v Queen's University Belfast [2010] NIIT 00017_09IT (18 February 2010)

Saad v Queen's University Belfast [2010] NIIT 00017_09IT (18 February 2010)

The tribunal found no facts from which it could infer discrimination or victimisation; the recruitment process was based on merit and hands-on experience, and the relevant decision-makers were unaware of the claimant's prior protected act. Even if the burden of proof had shifted, the respondent provided a satisfactory non-discriminatory explanation for the decision.

Citation
[2010] NIIT 00017_09IT
Parties
Claimant: Mohamed Saad; Respondent: Queen's University Belfast
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
18 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Employment Discrimination / Final Tribunal Decision
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Victimisation, Burden of Proof, Recruitment Procedures
Employment Law Anti Discrimination Law Race Discrimination Victimisation Burden of Proof Recruitment Procedures

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 7 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamed Saad

Claimant

Queen's University Belfast

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Discrimination / Final Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was treated less favourably on grounds of race in comparison to the successful candidate for the post of research assistant
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was victimised contrary to the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 for carrying out a protected act

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found no facts from which it could infer discrimination or victimisation; the recruitment process was based on merit and hands-on experience, and the relevant decision-makers were unaware of the claimant's prior protected act. Even if the burden of proof had shifted, the respondent provided a satisfactory non-discriminatory explanation for the decision.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed