Stevenson & Reid Ltd supply bathrooms and heating systems. Ms Scott, who worked at a Belfast branch, was the only Roman Catholic in the showroom. She claimed that she had been constructively unfairly dismissed and had suffered discrimination on the basis of religion and/or political opinion, harassment on the ground of her religious belief and/or political opinion and discrimination by victimisation. In July 2015, she asked her superior if she could be excused from the weekly credit meeting because she was under extreme pressure. He replied that she would not have to attend if her line manager, Mr McCammond, was prepared to deputise for her. He became annoyed and ended by shouting at Ms Scott, ‘I am fed up covering for you. You think of no one but yourself. This will not happen again. Tiocfaidh ar lá’ (‘Our day will come’ – a slogan used in Republican circles). Ms Scott believed that Mr McCammond shouted tiocfaidh ar lá because of her religion and perceived political opinion and intended to cause her offence. Complaints then emerged about the standard of her work; but the Fair Employment Tribunal (FET) was clearly unconvinced by the procedures followed in assessing them, concluding that they had been very unsatisfactory and that the complaints were resurrected by the respondent to use against the claimant. Ms Scott resigned, alleging discrimination and harassment contrary to the terms of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998.

The FET held that, on the evidence, the slogan had been used because of her religion or perceived political opinion and that it was clearly less favourable treatment. But, in any event, there was a prima facie case of religious or political discrimination under Article 38 of the 1998 Order. The incident, and Mr McCammond's use of language with a sectarian significance, had shifted the burden of proof to Stevenson & Reid Ltd, which had failed to prove that, on the balance of probabilities, her treatment was in no sense whatsoever on the ground of religion or political opinion, since ‘no discrimination whatsoever’ is compatible with the Burden of Proof Directive. The firm was vicariously liable for discrimination and for harassment within the terms of Article 3A of the 1998 Order. Finally, it had failed to demonstrate that Ms Scott's treatment was not related to her religion or political opinions and, accordingly, it had discriminated against her by way of victimisation. In addition to a basic award and compensation for her loss of statutory rights, she was awarded £15,000 for injury to feelings. [Frank Cranmer]