In person For the v Respondent — 2024

The claimant applied on 19 November 2022 for an Associate Consultant role. The respondent used an online Solve test and then CV screening by Ms Isobel Payne. The tribunal noted that some relevant documents were missing from the bundle, including the scoring rubric used by Ms Payne and any email showing referral for reconsideration, but accepted Ms Payne's evidence about the process. It also recorded that the parts of the indirect race discrimination claim listed in issues 2.5.1.1 to 2.5.1.6 were struck out because no deposit was paid.

The direct race discrimination claim, based on Russian national, not British national, and refugee status, failed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was not invited to interview because his CV did not show sufficient relevant experience, particularly the length and detail of his roles, and not because of race or nationality. It found no evidence that a British or non-Russian comparator with the same CV would have been treated more favourably, and it did not accept that the refusal to reconsider the application was race-based.

The indirect race discrimination claim also failed. The tribunal found that the claimant passed the Solve test and was therefore not disadvantaged by it, and that the other candidate assessment criteria did not put Russian, non-British or refugee candidates at a particular disadvantage on the evidence before it. For reasonable adjustments, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was disabled by PTSD and that the respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known he was disabled because he ticked the disability box on the application form, but it did not know the specific disadvantage or the adjustments sought. It held that the proposed adjustments, including reconsideration of the application, were not reasonable and dismissed the disability claim.