In person v Respondent — 2021

Ms Yousaf applied for a Grade 7 Rough Sleeping Advisor post with the Department and was shortlisted for interview after a sift of over 150 applicants. The Tribunal found that the sift and interview stages were separate, and that the interview panel used a standard script, scored each candidate, moderated the scores together and then offered the posts to the top scorers. Ms Yousaf scored 15 and was seventh out of 14 interviewed, while the first four selected candidates in the initial round were white.

A substantial part of the case concerned the interview notes and the internal complaint that followed the outcome. The Tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that all three panel members took notes in some form, that Mr Preest’s notes were not intended to be a verbatim transcript, and that the notes were a fair reflection of the interview. It accepted that the recruitment process had flaws, including below-standard note-taking and feedback that was not especially comprehensive, but held that those shortcomings applied across candidates and did not connect to Ms Yousaf’s race or sex.

Applying the burden of proof under s.136 Equality Act 2010 and the authorities it cited, including Igen v Wong and Madarassy v Nomura, the Tribunal held that the claimant had not shown the additional facts needed to support an inference of discrimination. The fact that all four initial appointees were white was considered potentially relevant to race discrimination, but given that 11 of the 14 interviewees were white, the Tribunal said that outcome was not unexpected or out of the ordinary. In any event, it found that the panel rechecked its scoring after noticing that the initial successful candidates were all white and remained satisfied that the highest-scoring candidates had been selected, which was sufficient to show that discrimination did not occur.

The Tribunal therefore dismissed both complaints of direct discrimination because of race and sex. No remedy was awarded.