In person For the v Respondent — 2021

The claimant applied for the post of Refugee and New Communities Integration Officer and was told on 20 October 2021 that he was the preferred candidate, subject to medical clearance and two satisfactory references. The tribunal found that this was not an offer of employment, whether unconditional or conditional, but part of an ongoing recruitment process. It also found, alternatively, that the claimant had not shown that any contract had crystallised when the references were later obtained.

When the references were received, Mrs Clipsom identified discrepancies between the application form and the information given by referees, including the salary stated for the claimant's current role, the omission of the Stockport traffic warden role, and the description of another role as full-time and higher paid when it was part-time and lower paid. The tribunal accepted that she became concerned about the claimant's integrity, not his competence, and that her decision to withdraw his preferred candidate status and restart the recruitment process in January 2022 was based on those concerns.

The harassment allegation failed. The claimant said that Mrs Clipsom made a race-related remark in a telephone call on 5 or 6 November 2021, but the tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence, accepted the telephone records as a complete record, and found that no such call took place. It also noted material inconsistencies between the ET1, the witness statement, and the claimant's oral evidence, and concluded that the allegation was fabricated.

The victimisation claim also failed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had brought a relevant employment tribunal claim against Stockport MBC and that he suffered detriment when he was removed from the recruitment process. However, it found no evidence that Mrs Clipsom weighed the Stockport litigation in the balance when making the decision, and accepted her explanation that she acted because she believed the claimant had given inaccurate or incomplete information and had lost trust in him.

The indirect discrimination claim failed in relation to both PCPs relied on by the claimant. The tribunal found that salary was not used as a measure of competence, that the claimant would not have been advantaged by stating the higher figure, and that the salary requirement did not disadvantage him on the facts found. It also found that the employment history requirement was not applied as the claimant alleged, that his competence had already been established, and that the omission of the Stockport post was treated as an issue of accuracy and integrity rather than as adverse weight being given to work outside his field of expertise.

The direct race discrimination claim failed because, although the claimant was black African and suffered detriment when the recruitment was halted, the tribunal accepted the respondent's explanation that the decision was taken because of concerns about the accuracy of the application and the claimant's integrity. It found that race or ethnicity played no part in the decision, noted that the team was diverse and that a black African candidate was appointed when the post was later re-advertised, and concluded that any candidate with similar integrity concerns would have been treated in the same way.