Representing himself For the v Mr E Hammer, Branch Austin — 2021

The claimant applied for the respondent's People Lead (HR) role and was selected for a pre-screening interview and then a first interview. The tribunal found that, during the pre-screening interview, Mr Jones said something to the effect that the company hoped to achieve a workforce with fewer white men as a proportion of the workforce, but it did not accept that this showed an intention to discriminate against the claimant because he was white or a man. The tribunal accepted that the context was a discussion about diversity in recruitment for a Head of HR post, and noted that the claimant was passed on to the next stage after the remark was made.

On the sex discrimination claim, the tribunal applied the burden of proof approach under s136 Equality Act 2010, with reference to Igen Ltd v Wong and Madarassy v Nomura International plc. It held that the claimant's case, taken with the comment, the podcast evidence, and the recruitment statistics, did not provide facts from which discrimination could be inferred. The tribunal considered it implausible that Mr Jones would openly make the alleged comment to the claimant if the respondent intended not to appoint him because he was a white man, and it found no involvement by Ms Willis in the decision not to appoint him.

The tribunal accepted that Mr Jones, Mr Clover and Miss Hopper had genuine reservations about the claimant's seniority, salary expectations, and fit for a hands-on operational HR role. It found that those concerns were recorded contemporaneously, that the respondent later revised the job description to make the role less senior and more operational, and that the successful candidate, Ms Brauer, was appointed at a salary of £78,000, close to the respondent's stated budget. The tribunal found that the respondent's decision not to appoint the claimant, and later appointment of Ms Brauer, were not because of sex or race. The race discrimination claim was dismissed for the same reasons, and the tribunal said there was even less evidence to support it than the sex claim.