In person For v Respondent — 2019

The Claimant, a Chinese British citizen aged 58, applied on 23 March 2018 for an operative/controller role in the Respondent's Global Security Operations Centre and was told on 28 March 2018 that he had been unsuccessful. He brought claims of direct discrimination on grounds of race, age and marital status, and the marital status claim was struck out before the final hearing as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The tribunal found that the Claimant had misunderstood the nature of the role. It was not primarily a CCTV post: the advertised job required monitoring intelligence feeds, analysing risk, and making appropriate incident responses, and the panel regarded Excel competence, teamwork and problem-solving as relevant selection criteria. The tribunal accepted that the assessment exercises pre-dated the Claimant's attendance and were designed to test those abilities.

On the disputed incidents, the tribunal found that all three external candidates' passports were collected and scanned, so the Claimant was not singled out. It did not accept that he was told not to attempt question 23 of the intelligence assessment or told to walk freely around the building. It accepted that a remark about finding a "suitable character to work as a team" was made or something similar, but found that, in context, it was not a racist remark. It also found the interview and test scoring to be fair, and it rejected the allegation that candidate D was markedly over-scored.

The tribunal concluded that the Respondent did not appoint the Claimant because Candidates B and D performed better in the assessment process and were judged better suited to the role. It found that the Claimant was not a proper comparator with those candidates because they had different skills, experience and performance, and that allowing him to leave after completing his assessment was not less favourable treatment. Applying the burden of proof approach under s.136 Equality Act 2010, the tribunal held that the Claimant had not proved primary facts from which discrimination could properly be inferred. The race and age claims were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.