Peifer v Peifer (Discrimination - Sex) [2018] NIIT 01511_05IT (10 December 2018)

Peifer v Peifer (Discrimination - Sex) [2018] NIIT 01511_05IT (10 December 2018)

The respondent's use of the criterion of appropriate experience was justified as a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of appointing the best candidate for the specific needs of the pupil. The inclusion of 'Other Relevant Experience' mitigated the discriminatory effect, and the claimant's failure to provide relevant details in his application was the sole reason for not being shortlisted, not his gender.

Citation
[2018] NIIT 01511_05IT
Parties
Claimant: James Robert Peifer; Respondent: Sullivan Upper School
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
10 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Employment Discrimination / Re Hearing After Court of Appeal Referral
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Indirect Discrimination, Sex Discrimination, Recruitment, Burden of Proof
Employment Law Equality Law Indirect Discrimination Sex Discrimination Recruitment Burden of Proof

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Robert Peifer

Claimant

Sullivan Upper School

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Discrimination / Re Hearing After Court of Appeal Referral

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's use of the criterion of appropriate experience in shortlisting was justified and proportionate, given its indirect discriminatory effect on male candidates

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's use of the criterion of appropriate experience was justified as a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of appointing the best candidate for the specific needs of the pupil. The inclusion of 'Other Relevant Experience' mitigated the discriminatory effect, and the claimant's failure to provide relevant details in his application was the sole reason for not being shortlisted, not his gender.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed