Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>RGIS Inventory Specialists LTD v Liam Davis [2014]
RGIS Inventory Specialists LTD v Liam Davis [2014]
Published on: 15/12/2015
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Legal Island
Legal Island
{}
Background

This was an appeal against a decision by an Equality Officer and highlights the need for a comparator in employment equality cases.

The claimant suggested that he was discriminated against in relation to the post of stock controller with the respondent.

Following successfully completing an online application questionnaire the complainant was informed that his application had been successful and was informed at a briefing session surrounding the job role that the complainant would be required to commence training the following week. The complainant noted in the case that unfortunately due to a holiday commitment he was unable to attend the session he was given and said the manager informed him that an alternative date would be made available.

The complainant then noted how on return from his holidays, he received notification from the respondent informing him that his application had been unsuccessful.

The basis of this case surrounded the complainant's belief that his age was the reason why he was unsuccessful. The complainant believed that the notification from the respondent informing him that his application was unsuccessful was on the basis of his age and viewed this as the only viable reason that could be found for such actions. The claimant noted that at the briefing session he was the oldest person there, with the others in attendance averaging in their twenties.

The respondent denied the claimant's claim, stating that age was not a consideration. Rather it was the claimant's failure to attend the second session due to a holiday commitment which resulted in a rejection letter automatically being sent.

The court noted how the claimant had failed to rely on an actual comparator in advancing his case. The court concluded that no evidence could be adduced from which an inference could be drawn and therefore the court was of the opinion that whilst the claimant may have believed that he was subjected to discriminatory treatment on the basis of his age there was insufficient evidence to uphold this claim.
http://bit.ly/1tO8oR2  

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 15/12/2015