This case surrounded an appeal by the complainant against a decision of an Equality Officer. The complainant in this case made a claim of discrimination alleging that she had been discriminated against on several grounds whilst applying for a position with the respondent. The ground in which she claims she was discriminated against were marital status, family status, age and nationality. The complainant was a Hungarian and was married with a family and was 48 years old at the time of the alleged discrimination. 

The respondent company is an agency which supplies cabin crew to various airlines throughout Europe. Following a selection process and the successful completion of their training programme an applicant is then subcontracted to an airline, with the cabin crew being employed by the respondent. The claimant was unsuccessful in her application to the respondent. 

Following this unsuccessful application the complainant contented that she had been asked discriminatory questions which related to her age and nationality at interview. The complainant further contended that during the interview she was questioned around why she had left her previous job in which she answered that she "got married". The complainant contended that it was at this point that the interview ended. For this reason the complainant contended that this demonstrated that the respondent discriminated against the respondent on the basis of family and marital status in addition to the claims of nationality and age.

The respondent argued that the claimant had failed to establish a prima facie case in regards to discrimination. The respondent argued that the reason that the complainant's application was rejected was the result of poor communication skills in English. The respondent said that whilst the complainant met the technical standards required, her communication skills were not good enough, as it was difficult to understand her.

The court concluded its finding on each of the grounds of which the claimant argued discrimination. 

Looking first to discrimination on the grounds of nationality. The court looked to the authority of Noonan in which the court noted that whilst a competency in English can be indirectly discriminatory it can be objectively justified if it is in pursuance of a legitimate objective of the employer. The court held that looking to the facts of this particular case it could objectively justify discrimination in this case as requirements are set down at international level for the safety and well-being of passengers on-board the aircraft. On this basis, discrimination on the grounds of nationality was not established. 

Secondly, dealing with the claim of discrimination on age. The court held that whilst it could be inferred from the questions asked at interview that age was a relevant consideration. The court held that it was satisfied that it was not a significant factor in the complainant not being successful, therefore the claimant's claim failed on this ground also. 

On the last grounds of the claim, discrimination on marital and family status, the court held that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that the respondent's decision to reject the complainant's application was on these grounds. 

Therefore the court determined that the appeal failed on all accounts of discrimination. 

Read the full case review: http://bit.ly/1jEWFmQ