Claimant v Stirling Council
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found no evidence that race played any substantial part in the decisions not to appoint the claimant. For the first post, additional ASN Outreach support made the role unnecessary—anyone booked would have been cancelled. For the second post, the claimant's application did not meet the essential criteria relating to experience with challenging behaviour, whereas the four shortlisted candidates did. Ms McGonigle was unaware of the claimant's beliefs and race played no part consciously or subconsciously in her assessment.
The tribunal accepted that the respondent's decision-makers were not aware of the claimant's belief (opposition to the Chinese Communist Party). As such, her belief could not have influenced the decisions either consciously or subconsciously. The claimant's genuine suspicion that the Confucius Institute influenced the decisions was not supported by any primary fact evidence.
Facts
The claimant, a Chinese national opposed to the Chinese Communist Party, applied for two Support for Learning Assistant posts with Stirling Council. She was initially booked for the first post (four SLA roles at Bannockburn High School) in August 2023 but the booking was cancelled because additional ASN Outreach support was provided, making all four roles unnecessary. She applied for a second post at Stirling High School in September 2023 but was not shortlisted for interview. Fourteen applicants applied; four were shortlisted based on meeting the essential criteria of experience with challenging pupil behaviour. The claimant's application did not demonstrate this experience. She believed the Confucius Institute influenced both decisions because of her political beliefs and race.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed both discrimination claims. It found no evidence that the claimant's race or belief played any part in the decisions. For the first post, the cancellation was due to provision of central ASN Outreach support, which would have affected any applicant. For the second post, the claimant's application did not meet the essential criteria, whereas successful applicants did. The decision-makers were unaware of the claimant's political beliefs. There was no primary fact evidence supporting the claimant's suspicion of Confucius Institute involvement.
Practical note
Genuine suspicion of discrimination, even when rooted in a claimant's difficult historical experiences, cannot substitute for primary fact evidence showing a causal link between a protected characteristic and less favourable treatment.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4100548/2024
- Decision date
- 14 April 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Stirling Council
- Sector
- local government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Support for Learning Assistant
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor