Case 1602115/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Adan v Cardiff County Council — 2021
- Case reference
- 1602115/2020
- Decision date
- 7 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Davies
- Venue
- Cardiff
- Panel members
- Ms H Mason, Ms H Hinkin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Adan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs S Adan brought claims after Cardiff County Council, through Ms Lisa Wood, decided not to interview her for an agency social work post in October 2020. The emails referred to by the tribunal showed confusion with another person in some of the correspondence, and Ms Wood described the claimant as someone from her earlier time managing the Llandough Hospital team. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had previously worked at Llandough and that there had been a 2015 overpayment issue in the background, involving gross pay of £3,390.95 and net pay of £2,155.30, but it found that those matters were part of Ms Wood's reasoning rather than evidence of race or religion discrimination.
The tribunal found that Ms Wood's decision not to interview the claimant was based on her view of the claimant's integrity in relation to the 2015 overpayment and on the skill set needed for the short-term agency roles that were available in October 2020. It accepted Ms Wood's evidence that the short-term funding required experienced candidates who could start quickly, and that Ms Wood had also made decisions about other applicants on the basis of her recollection of their previous work. The tribunal did not accept that the claimant had been singled out because she was a woman of colour or because she wore a hijab.
Applying section 13 Equality Act 2010 and the burden of proof approach discussed in Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi, together with sections 23, 39 and 136 of the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal held that the claimant had not shown facts from which it could infer discrimination and that, in any event, the respondent had explained the treatment by reference to non-protected reasons. The claim for direct discrimination because of race and/or religion was dismissed. No compensation or other remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct discrimination allegation arising from the refusal to interview the claimant for an October 2020 agency social work role; dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct discrimination allegation arising from the refusal to interview the claimant for an October 2020 agency social work role; dismissed. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.23 Equality Act 2010
- s.39 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi [2021] UKSC 33
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Madarassi v Nomura International plc
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.