Mr G Townley v Autism Hampshire — 2020

Mr Townley applied for a Service Administrator post advertised by Autism Hampshire in late 2018. His application was received after the deadline and was rejected by Ms Houghton without being sent to the full three-person panel. After he complained, the rejection was reviewed and Mrs Bray reached the same conclusion. He brought claims of indirect age discrimination and direct disability discrimination.

On the age claim, the tribunal accepted that the job specification required a Business Administration/Secretarial NVQ/QCF or equivalent. It found that this did not place people over 40 at a particular disadvantage because equivalent business administration qualifications could have been obtained earlier, and because the respondent also treated actual business administration experience as satisfying the requirement. It rejected Mr Townley’s argument that his BTEC in IT should have been treated as equivalent to the required qualification, and said that even if any disadvantage had been shown, the respondent would have been acting proportionately to achieve the legitimate aim of recruiting someone with relevant business administration qualifications or experience.

On the disability claim, Mr Townley’s case was that he would have been shortlisted if he had been autistic. The tribunal held that the amendment process had not opened the door to a separate reasonable-adjustments complaint, and that the claim before it was the direct discrimination allegation only. It accepted evidence from Ms Houghton and Mrs Bray that an autistic applicant would not have been favoured. The tribunal concluded that Mr Townley had not been discriminated against on grounds of disability, so both claims were dismissed.

The respondent applied for costs under rule 76 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The tribunal said the claims were unmeritorious and that it was unreasonable for Mr Townley to have proceeded after warning, but it declined to make a costs order. It took into account that he felt badly treated, that he had consulted advisers during the proceedings, and that there were aspects of the respondent’s own internal process which were not beyond criticism.