Claimant v Sebden Steel Services Centres Ltd T/a Sebden Steel Northern — 2023

The claimant, aged 61, applied in December 2021 for a warehouse operative role with the respondent. He was interviewed on 20 December 2021 by the Works Manager, Mr Rider, with a Team Leader present. The tribunal found that Mr Rider and Mr Roebuck decided to offer the job immediately after the interview, and that the claimant was told he would be contacted the next day. The respondent then did not call him on 21 December 2021, and the claimant emailed the HR Director alleging age and disability discrimination before withdrawing his application on 22 December 2021.

On age, the tribunal found that Mr Rider had asked the claimant his age, including because the claimant referred to that point in his email of 21 December 2021. However, it found that age played no part in the decision to offer the job. The claimant’s age and documents showing his date of birth were known at the interview stage, but the tribunal accepted Mr Rider’s evidence that the decision to offer was made regardless of age and that there was no evidence of adverse influence from the claimant being 61.

On disability, the claimant had admitted disabilities of chronic kidney disease and HIV. The tribunal found that the claimant discussed his asthma, stress, and HIV in the interview when explaining why he had left his previous job, but it was not satisfied that he gave that information in response to a prohibited health question or that the respondent relied on it when deciding whether to offer employment. Applying the direct discrimination and burden-of-proof provisions it cited, the tribunal concluded that the failure to communicate the offer was caused by the claimant’s discrimination allegations and the respondent’s decision to take advice, not by age or disability. Both claims were therefore dismissed, and no remedy was awarded.