Mr T Sheppard, counsel For the v Respondent — 2020

The claimant, a former Judge’s Clerk, applied for a Judge’s Clerk vacancy in recruitment exercise 31459. The tribunal found that the process used Success Profiles and fair and open competition, that the claimant passed the skills test, and that she was the only candidate who undertook the skills test and interview on the same day because of earlier confusion over whether she needed to take the test and because this arrangement was to save her time and expense. The tribunal held that this did not amount to less favourable treatment and was not because of age.

On the non-appointment decision, the tribunal found that the claimant did not reach the required standard at interview. Her overall score was 25 out of 47, below the pass mark of 30, and her behaviour score was 16 out of 35. The tribunal accepted the panel’s evidence that the scores were a reasonable reflection of her answers, that the panel assessed the interview answers only and did not rely on prior knowledge of her former role, and that there were no age-related comments in the interview notes. Candidate 5 and other successful candidates were treated as having performed better at interview, not as having been preferred because of age.

The tribunal also rejected the complaint about delayed feedback. Written feedback was given on 21 May 2020, about two months after it was requested, but the tribunal found the delay was caused by pandemic disruption, home working, lack of access to documents, and the need to prioritise work. Applying the direct discrimination authorities and the burden of proof provisions, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not treated less favourably than a real or hypothetical 20 to 25-year-old comparator and that age played no part in the decisions complained of. The direct age discrimination claim was dismissed.