Shirlow v Translink [2008] NIIT 229_07IT (13 June 2008)

Shirlow v Translink [2008] NIIT 229_07IT (13 June 2008)

The tribunal found that the respondent could not reasonably be expected to know of the claimant's disability as the claimant had not disclosed it in the monitoring forms or otherwise flagged it to those responsible for the recruitment process. Therefore, the duty to make reasonable adjustments did not arise. Even if the duty had arisen, the respondent provided an adequate and non-discriminatory explanation for the treatment, and no practicable reasonable adjustment was identified that would have prevented the disadvantage. The claim was dismissed.

Citation
[2008] NIIT 229_07IT
Parties
Claimant: Denis Shirlow; Respondent: Translink
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
13 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal / Decision on a Pre Hearing Review
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Reasonable Adjustments, Recruitment Process, Burden of Proof, Disability Discrimination Act 1995
Employment Law Disability Discrimination Reasonable Adjustments Recruitment Process Burden of Proof Disability Discrimination Act 1995

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Denis Shirlow

Claimant

Translink

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal / Decision on a Pre Hearing Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent failed in its duty under Section 4A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in the arrangements for a recruitment exercise for the post of Signal Person
  2. 2 Whether the respondent knew or could reasonably be expected to know that the claimant had a disability likely to be affected by the failure to make reasonable adjustments

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that the respondent could not reasonably be expected to know of the claimant's disability as the claimant had not disclosed it in the monitoring forms or otherwise flagged it to those responsible for the recruitment process. Therefore, the duty to make reasonable adjustments did not arise. Even if the duty had arisen, the respondent provided an adequate and non-discriminatory explanation for the treatment, and no practicable reasonable adjustment was identified that would have prevented the disadvantage. The claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed