Claimant v Secretary of State for the Home Office
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found no group disadvantage from the practice of 'Managed Moves for experience in grade' (PCP1). Moving vacancies around was random and could have benefited the claimant. No hidden barrier established.
Tribunal found no practice of recruiting to TCA roles without advertisement using a pool of TCA holders (PCP2). All TCA roles advertised on first appointment. Two examples of extensions insufficient to establish a practice.
Tribunal found no practice of recruiting permanent roles via temporary EOI (PCP3). Only one example (Paul Fraser) of conversion without process. Roles legitimately advertised temporarily. Most were specialist roles not on the reserve list anyway.
Facts
Claimant, a Senior Executive Officer employed since 2003 by the Home Office, was placed third on a reserve list from a 2022 brigaded recruitment campaign for Grade 7 roles. He complained that Grade 7 vacancies were not filled from this list but instead through 'Managed Moves' (lateral transfers for experience), temporary cover allowances (TCA), and conversion of temporary to permanent roles, which he alleged indirectly discriminated against British Asian staff. The respondent's unit was expanding rapidly due to small boat arrivals. Statistics showed 14.9% of Grade 7 staff in the relevant unit were ethnic minority compared to 20.4% at lower grades.
Decision
Tribunal unanimously dismissed all indirect race discrimination claims. Found no practice of bypassing the reserve list: 'Managed Moves' simply relocated vacancies randomly across the organisation with no group disadvantage; TCA roles were always advertised; and roles advertised temporarily were legitimately temporary, mostly specialist roles not covered by the reserve list. Most claims also out of time and not just and equitable to extend.
Practical note
Statistical disparity at senior grades alone does not establish indirect discrimination; claimant must prove the specific PCP creates group disadvantage, and that lateral moves creating vacancies elsewhere is not discriminatory if the outcome is random across the organisation.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2305197/2023
- Decision date
- 5 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- central government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Senior Executive Officer
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister