Mr Mudassar Mubin v Walkers Nonsuch Limited Held At: Midlands West by CVP — 2023

This was a preliminary hearing on the respondent's application to strike out parts of the claimant's direct race discrimination claim, or alternatively to obtain a deposit order. The claimant said he was treated less favourably because of his Pakistani national origin when his applications for a Food Auditor / Technical Manager role were not progressed in April 2022, and later when the respondent contacted a previous employer after learning he had contacted Acas. The judge recorded that the respondent relied on the rejection of 51 Indeed applications as unsuitable, the later direct application, and the eventual appointment of Ms Okolowicz.

The tribunal declined to strike out or require a deposit for the recruitment complaint. It held that the issues raised were disputed questions of fact and law, including whether Ms Okolowicz was an appropriate comparator, whether the claimant or Ms Okolowicz was better qualified, whether the claimant's employment history and distance from the site were material, and whether those matters could support an inference of race discrimination. The judge said these matters were unsuited to determination at a preliminary hearing and should be resolved at a full hearing.

By contrast, the tribunal struck out the complaint about the contact with the previous employer. It accepted the respondent's evidence that the call was made after the claimant's applications had been rejected and after the respondent learned he had contacted Acas, and that the purpose was to find out more about him and his work history. The judge also noted the claimant's own case that the call was made to bolster the respondent's reasons for rejecting his application, which did not support a race-based inference. Alternatively, the tribunal held that the making of the call was not relevant treatment within s.39(1) Equality Act 2010.