Claimant v Office for National Statistics
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant was not appointed because he did not provide appropriate evidence of past experience required by the respondent, specifically in 'mediating and mending relationships'. The claimant prepared for interview on what he considered important, not what the respondent had made clear was important. He chose a poor example of past experience in his answer to the question on communication between technical and non-technical, bypassing a colleague rather than demonstrating mediation. The treatment was not because of communication difficulties arising from disability, but due to lack of merit in the evidence he chose to provide.
The tribunal found that the respondent agreed and implemented reasonable adjustments with the claimant before interview (written questions 24 hours in advance, one panel member asking questions, cameras off). The claimant himself requested variations during the interview. The tribunal found that not all alleged PCPs were in place, few substantial disadvantages existed, and the suggested further adjustments would not have been reasonable. The respondent did its best to accommodate the claimant and ensure he was not disadvantaged. The claimant's lower score was due to his choice of poor example, not a failure to adjust.
Facts
The claimant, an autistic individual specialising in front-end software engineering, applied for a Front End Technical Lead role with the Office for National Statistics. He was not appointed after scoring below the required minimum on 'communication between technical and non-technical' in the interview. The respondent made agreed reasonable adjustments including written questions 24 hours in advance and a single panel member asking questions. During the interview the claimant experienced a meltdown after panel members tried to refocus his answer, but he chose to continue. His unsuccessful score was due to providing a poor example of past experience where he bypassed a colleague rather than mediating, which was a clearly stated essential skill in the job documentation.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed both the s.15 discrimination arising from disability claim and the s.20-21 reasonable adjustments claim. The tribunal found that the claimant was not appointed due to the evidence he chose to provide in interview, not because of communication difficulties arising from his disability. The respondent implemented agreed reasonable adjustments and acted reasonably throughout. The claimant prepared for aspects of the role he considered important rather than what the respondent had clearly documented as essential.
Practical note
Employers can successfully defend disability discrimination claims in recruitment if they clearly document role requirements, agree and implement reasonable adjustments with the candidate, and assess all candidates fairly against the same published criteria, even where the disabled candidate is unsuccessful.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1602262/2023
- Decision date
- 11 July 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 10
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Applicant for Front End Technical Lead (FETL) - Grade 7
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No