Mrs M Leacy v Governing Body of Trinity Catholic High School and Others: 3205650/2022
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. Case Number: 3205650/20222.2 The protected characteristic relied upon was unclear; and2.3 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 to be addressed by evidence, because the proper legal basis for this claim is absent. Approved by: