Judith Allen

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The applicant argued there was new evidence and that the decision conflicted with established case law.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-argue issues already canvassed and that the original decision was consistent with established accommodation principles.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.

The applicant failed to provide a valid mailing address, failed to comply with disclosure obligations under Rules 16 and 17, and failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a Ph.D. candidate with bipolar affective disorder, alleged that the respondent university failed to accommodate his disability and discriminated against him by terminating his employment and cancelling his registration.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not an employee at the material times.

The Tribunal further held that the cancellation of his registration was due to his failure to disclose his previous academic history, a bona fide reason unrelated to his disability.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed the failure to accommodate claim, finding that the applicant had not requested accommodation, already had a flexible schedule, and failed to cooperate in the accommodation process.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnic origin, claiming she was terminated after someone else punched her time card while she was absent.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no evidence connecting the applicant's termination or the time card incident to her ethnic origin, concluding the allegations were purely speculative.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, a Community Patrol Officer, suffered a workplace knee injury and alleged that his employer failed to accommodate his disability and discriminatorily terminated his employment.

The employer offered modified desk duties at the same pay rate, which were consistent with the applicant's medical restrictions.

The applicant refused to attempt a return to work for over three years, claiming an inability to commute to the work location, an assertion unsupported by medical evidence.

The Tribunal found that the employer met its duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship and that the termination was a lawful response to the applicant's failure to attend work, not discrimination.