Governing Body of Trinity Catholic High School and Others

Case Summary

The claimant brought a claim for indirect discrimination based on disability. The tribunal struck out the claim pursuant to ET rule 38(1)(a) on the grounds that it had no reasonable prospect of success due to fundamental deficiencies in pleading: no neutral identifiable PCP was pleaded, the protected characteristic was unclear, and no disadvantaged group was defined for comparative analysis.

The indirect discrimination claim was struck out because it contained fundamental deficiencies that could not be remedied by evidence: no neutral identifiable PCP was pleaded, the protected characteristic relied upon was unclear, and no disadvantaged group was defined to enable proper comparative analysis. Despite previous tribunal orders requesting clarification, the claimant failed to articulate these essential legal elements even at the hearing.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Whether indirect discrimination claim was properly pleaded
• •Whether claimant had defined a neutral practice criterion (PCP)
• •Whether protected characteristic was clearly identified
• •Whether a disadvantaged group was defined for comparison

1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mrs M Leacy Respondents: 1. Governing Body of Trinity Catholic High School 2. Paul Charles Doherty 3. Nigel Doherty 4. Kerry Mulligan 5 Mary Liddane 6. Ann Corry STRIKE OUT JUDGMENT The Claimant’s claim for indirect discrimination is struck out pursuant to ET rule 38(1)(a) on the basis that it has no reasonable prosects of success. REASONS 1. For indirect discrimination, Mr Leacy contended that the PCPs applied generally but placed those with certain protected characteristic particularly disability at a disadvantage. He sought to rely on the claimant’s own experience as the basis of disadvantage, especially anxiety, physical vulnerability, and fatigue in consequence of short notice meetings, travel between sites, stairs, or inadequate support in classrooms. When questioned during the hearing, Mr Leacy was unable to articulate identify a defined group beyond those with the relevant protected characteristics to enable appropriate group comparison to be undertaken. Mr Leacy maintained that the PCPs were inherently disadvantageous in practice to those with disabilities, and that the claimant personally suffered that disadvantage. 2. I consider that the indirect discrimination has fundamental deficiencies. In particular: 2.1 No neutral identifiable PCP was pleaded. 2 2.2 The protected characteristic relied upon was unclear; and 2.3 No disadvantaged group was defined for a comparative exercised to be undertaken 3. There have been previous Tribunal orders requesting clarification of the indirect discrimination claim and the Claimant has been unable to articulate these essential elements, including at the hearing itself. 4. In these circumstances the Claimant’s indirect discrimination claims are struck out on the basis that as pleaded they have no reasonable prospect of success. The deficiencies are not able t…