Claimant v Roehampton University
Outcome
Individual claims
Claimant alleged that in October 2022 management did not suggest he apply for Recruitment Officer role. Tribunal found all employees in Department received same email notification. No evidence whatsoever that Claimant's race was a significant influence or effective cause. Burden of proof never shifted.
Claimant alleged being unsuccessful in interview on 14 December 2022 was race discrimination. Tribunal found successful candidate (white male) justifiably scored higher based on experience and interview performance. Panel was ethnically balanced. No facts proved to show race was a factor.
Claimant alleged email of 20 January 2023 showed preference for another candidate and amended recruitment process to disadvantage him. Whilst Claimant reasonably interpreted email as showing preference, there was no evidence preference was because of race. Internal emails showed manager expected Claimant would also apply.
Claimant alleged he resigned on 3 April 2023 due to discriminatory conduct. Tribunal found Respondent had not committed repudiatory breach as no discrimination proven. Even if breach existed, Claimant affirmed contract by continuing to work fully engaged for over two months after last alleged act.
Claimant alleged failure by Head of Recruitment to respond to complaint about manager on 27 April 2023 was race discrimination. Tribunal found manager made efforts to contact Claimant by phone and WhatsApp but did not respond in writing. No evidence race was a factor. Manager's approach had nothing to do with Claimant's race.
Claimant alleged having five panel members including two observers at his interview on 14 December 2022 was harassment. Tribunal found as fact only three panel members, not five. Observers attended all candidates' presentations, not just Claimant's. Conduct not related to race.
Claimant alleged interview panel on 14 December 2022 contained only white people. Tribunal found as fact panel was ethnically balanced and included Ms Butt, a Pakistani Muslim. Allegation failed on facts and no evidence panel composition related to Claimant's race.
Facts
Black Recruitment Co-ordinator employed September 2021 to April 2023 applied unsuccessfully for promotion to Recruitment Officer in December 2022. The role was offered to an external white male candidate who then declined. In third recruitment round limited to internal candidates in January 2023, Claimant did not apply and his white female colleague was appointed, becoming his line manager. Claimant resigned in April 2023 alleging race discrimination in recruitment processes and management conduct.
Decision
Tribunal unanimously dismissed all claims. Found no evidence that Claimant's race was a factor in any recruitment decisions or management conduct. Interview panel was ethnically balanced. Successful candidate in December 2022 objectively performed better at interview. Manager's email in January 2023, whilst reasonably interpreted by Claimant as showing preference for another candidate, had no connection to race. No repudiatory breach to justify constructive dismissal claim.
Practical note
Bare facts of difference in treatment and difference in protected characteristic are insufficient to shift burden of proof in discrimination cases without something more to suggest the characteristic influenced the treatment; internal recruitment processes require careful communication to avoid perception of bias even where none exists.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2302811/2023
- Decision date
- 7 January 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Recruitment Co-ordinator
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No