Claimant v Blaby District Council

The tribunal found that the claimant, a Black African woman, was treated less favourably than the successful candidate (an Asian man) in the recruitment and selection process for the Housing Accommodation and Enablement Officer role. She was interrupted during her interview preventing full answers, was not offered the same prompting opportunities as the comparator, scored highest but was not appointed, and the respondent failed to follow its own recruitment procedure. The tribunal concluded that race (alongside sex) was an operative cause of this treatment.

The tribunal found that the claimant was discriminated against because of her sex in the recruitment process. The role historically consisted only of men and had a 'male culture'. She was treated less favourably than the male comparator during the interview process, was the highest scoring candidate but was not appointed, and the respondent's departure from its recruitment procedure was not adequately explained. The tribunal concluded sex was an operative cause of the discriminatory treatment alongside race.

The claimant's complaint regarding the delay in providing interview scoresheets failed. The tribunal found no evidence that an employee of a different race would have been treated more favourably in the timely provision of this information, and the respondent's processes for handling such requests applied equally to all employees.

The claimant's complaint regarding the delay in providing interview scoresheets failed. The tribunal found no evidence that an employee of a different sex would have been treated more favourably in the timely provision of this information.

The claimant's complaint regarding the difference in shadowing opportunities offered to her compared to the comparator failed. The tribunal found that Mr Crane originally agreed to allow the claimant to shadow him before deciding it would be of limited value at that time, and no inference of race discrimination could be drawn from the primary facts.

The claimant's complaint regarding the difference in shadowing opportunities failed. The tribunal found no evidence that sex was an operative factor in the decision to redirect the claimant's shadowing request to another individual.