Peifer v Castlederg High School

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff claimed unlawful discrimination on the ground of sex, alleging he was not short-listed for the post of classroom assistant at Castlederg High School. He also claimed indirect sex discrimination. The Defendants denied all allegations. The tribunal heard evidence from multiple witnesses including the school principal, human resources officials from the Western Education and Library Board, school governors, and an Equal Opportunities Officer. Documentation bundles were also presented. The Plaintiff renewed a request for a reference to the European Court of Justice during the proceedings. The tribunal conducted the hearing in accordance with the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly, fairly, and expeditiously as set out in relevant procedural regulations. The tribunal made procedural rulings including refusal to join additional parties, ordering discovery after finding incomplete disclosure by the Defendants, and refusing the Plaintiff's application for wasted costs related to a hearing adjournment due to weather. The Plaintiff was permitted to record proceedings under conditions after initially doing so without permission. The issues before the tribunal were whether the Plaintiff was unlawfully discriminated against on grounds of sex in recruitment and whether he suffered indirect sex discrimination.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff was unlawfully discriminated against on the ground of sex in the recruitment process for the classroom assistant post at Castlederg High School.
2. Whether the Plaintiff was subjected to indirect sex discrimination in the recruitment process.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The tribunal carefully examined the evidence and procedural history, applying the legal framework governing direct and indirect sex discrimination as set out in the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 and subsequent amendments. It found that the Plaintiff’s unsigned and undated application form was rejected in accordance with an established unwritten policy, which was consistently applied to other candidates including a female comparator from 2002. The tribunal accepted that the short-listing criteria were not applied to the Plaintiff because his application was incomplete. The Defendants conceded that the Plaintiff would have met the criteria had they been applied. The tribunal considered relevant correspondence indicating that candidates should be given an opportunity to sign forms at interview, but noted that the school governors continued to apply the prior policy until directed otherwise in writing. The tribunal also considered the burden of proof principles and relevant case law, concluding that the Plaintiff had not proved facts from which unlawful discrimination could be inferred in the absence of an adequate explanation. The tribunal further rejected the Plaintiff’s request for a reference to the European Court of Justice, finding it unnecessary to resolve the case. Ultimately, the tribunal found no evidence of less favourable treatment on grounds of sex, nor of unlawful indirect discrimination, given the consistent application of the policy regarding unsigned applications and the failure to identify a discriminatory provision, criterion or practice.

Holding and Implications

The Plaintiff's claims of direct and indirect sex discrimination are dismissed.

The tribunal’s decision results in the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants. No new legal precedent was established, and the ruling affirms that the consistent application of a policy regarding unsigned application forms, applied equally to male and female candidates, did not constitute unlawful sex discrimination in this case. The tribunal also declined to refer any question to the European Court of Justice, avoiding further delay and expense.