Claimant v Manchester City Council
Outcome
Individual claims
Strike-out application dismissed. Claim arguable. Claimant alleges she was denied guaranteed interview under Council's Guaranteed Interview Scheme policy for disabled people, and that the anonymised application process disadvantaged her in demonstrating eligibility, constituting unfavourable treatment arising from disability contrary to s.15 Equality Act 2010.
Strike-out application dismissed. Claim arguable. Claimant alleges direct disability discrimination in not being shortlisted for interview compared to successful candidate Gemma Walsh who did not share her protected characteristics.
Strike-out application dismissed. Claim arguable. Claimant asserts the anonymised application form/process was a PCP that put her at a particular disadvantage because she could not demonstrate eligibility for the Guaranteed Interview Scheme without identifying herself.
Strike-out application dismissed. Claim arguable. Claimant alleges unfavourable treatment by Simon Gardiner following her decision not to accept secondment, including comments she found discriminatory, and that this influenced the decision not to shortlist her for interview.
Strike-out application dismissed. Claim arguable. Claimant alleges direct race discrimination in the shortlisting decision, including that panel chair used influence to discriminate and that similar examples were raised in the Council's race review.
Strike-out application dismissed. Claim arguable. Claimant alleges she was told that an employee could not move from grade 7 to grade 10 without sufficient experience, yet a younger candidate (approximately 32 years old) was appointed, suggesting discrimination due to age and desire to recruit younger staff.
Strike-out application dismissed. Claim arguable. Claimant alleges direct age discrimination in the recruitment process, particularly regarding comments about moving from grade 7 to grade 10 and appointment of younger, less experienced candidate.
Strike-out application dismissed. Claim arguable. Claimant alleges failure to make reasonable adjustments in recruitment process, particularly relating to the anonymised application system which prevented her from demonstrating eligibility under the Guaranteed Interview Scheme policy.
Facts
Claimant, a long-serving Access Officer (grade 7) with approximately 30 years' service, applied for a Workplace Adjustment Hub manager role (grade 10) after declining a secondment to set up the same project. She was not shortlisted for interview under the Council's Guaranteed Interview Scheme for disabled people, despite believing she met the criteria. She alleges discriminatory comments were made by Simon Gardiner after she declined the secondment, and that the anonymised application process prevented her from demonstrating eligibility for the guaranteed interview. A younger, less experienced candidate (Gemma Walsh) was appointed. Claimant raised a grievance in September 2023 and filed her tribunal claim in December 2023.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the respondent's strike-out application under Rule 38. The tribunal found the claim was arguable with prospects of success. The claimant, a litigant in person, had sufficiently particularised her claims in her ET1 and subsequent documents despite some lack of legal precision. The respondent had been able to understand and respond to the claims in an Amended Grounds of Resistance. The tribunal found no evidence of unreasonable conduct or breach of orders by the claimant.
Practical note
Employment lawyers should not use strike-out applications to avoid engaging with the substance of claims brought by litigants in person, particularly in fact-sensitive discrimination cases where the claim is sufficiently intelligible even if not professionally pleaded.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2412901/2023
- Decision date
- 22 May 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- Manchester City Council
- Sector
- local government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Access Officer
- Service
- 31 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No