Carlin v Social Security Agency [2008] NIFET 259_02FET (04 March 2008)

Carlin v Social Security Agency [2008] NIFET 259_02FET (04 March 2008)

The Tribunal found that, although there were delays and some unwarranted actions by the respondent, there was no evidence that any treatment of the claimant was motivated by her having carried out protected acts. The actions and omissions of the respondent and its officials were not affected by any prohibited ground. The claimant failed to establish facts from which the Tribunal could properly conclude, in the absence of an adequate explanation, that the respondent committed an act of victimisation discrimination. The respondent provided credible, non-discriminatory explanations for all actions challenged.

Citation
[2008] NIFET 259_02FET
Parties
Claimant: Rosaleen Carlin; Respondent: Social Security Agency
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
04 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Fair Employment Tribunal Claim / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Victimisation, Sex Discrimination, Religious Discrimination, Burden of Proof, Comparators, Employment Practices
Employment Law Discrimination Law Victimisation Sex Discrimination Religious Discrimination Burden of Proof Comparators Employment Practices

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rosaleen Carlin

Claimant

Social Security Agency

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Fair Employment Tribunal Claim / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was subjected to victimisation discrimination contrary to the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 and the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was treated less favourably by reason of having carried out protected acts
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's actions constituted unlawful detriment under the relevant Orders

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that, although there were delays and some unwarranted actions by the respondent, there was no evidence that any treatment of the claimant was motivated by her having carried out protected acts. The actions and omissions of the respondent and its officials were not affected by any prohibited ground. The claimant failed to establish facts from which the Tribunal could properly conclude, in the absence of an adequate explanation, that the respondent committed an act of victimisation discrimination. The respondent provided credible, non-discriminatory explanations for all actions challenged.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed

Orders

  • All claims of the claimant are dismissed.