Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Campbell Catering Limited t/a Aramark Ireland v Marie Fogarty [2018]
Campbell Catering Limited t/a Aramark Ireland v Marie Fogarty [2018]
Published on: 15/03/2018
Issues Covered: Discipline Discrimination
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Legal Island
Legal Island
{}
Background
This case involved a claim that the complainant has been discriminated against on grounds of family status as she had been harassed by her employer. The basic facts were not in dispute being that the claimant had been asked by a manager of the respondent company on whether she had a problem with her hair, or if her daughter had. The complainant responded in the negative and enquired as to whether she meant 'nits'. 

After this discussion the complainant went to the ward kitchen and the manager went into it afterwards. Following an interaction between the two the claimant left and subsequently made a complaint under the Dignity at Work policy in place. This complaint was investigated and the Respondent found that this conversation, although handled incorrectly, was not intended to upset the complainant and that the manager had offered an apology. This decision was appealed and the original decision was upheld with a recommendation of further training and mediation between the complainant and the manager involved.
 
The complainant submitted that the query regarding her daughter was a reference to her family status and constituted harassment. The manager involved stated in evidence that two of her colleagues had reported a concern about something in the employee's hair and that she had no option but to approach the issue, given the fact she worked in a hospital. She also stated that the question regarding the complainant's daughter was founded on life experiences regarding 'nits' among school children. 

The Court stated that they were satisfied that the question regarding the complainant's daughter raised an inference of discrimination. The Court agreed that the reasons for the engagement were well-intended but they accepted that the experience did cause distress to the complainant. The Court concluded that a person of a different family status than the complainant in the same circumstances would have been invited to engage with the manager in the office and that a person of another family status would not have been asked about their child's hair if the manager had been aware of that difference in family status.

However, the Court held that any questions regarding the complainant's daughter did not amount to conduct which had the purpose or effect of violating a person's dignity and creating a negative environment for the person. Accordingly, the Court found that the respondent did not harass the complainant on the grounds of family status.

 

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 15/03/2018
Q&A
Legal Island’s LMS, licensed to you Imagine your staff having 24/7 access to a centralised training platform, tailored to your organisation’s brand and staff training needs, with unlimited users. Learn more →