Representing himself For the v Respondent — 2022

The claimant, who the respondent accepted was disabled by reason of autism, applied for an Immigration Officer post through the Home Office Disability Confident Scheme. He completed the online tests but scored 2 on the 500-word personal statement and was told on 28 July 2022 that his application would not progress to interview.

The tribunal rejected the claim for direct disability discrimination. It found that the personal statement had been correctly marked against the published essential criteria and sifting guidance, and that the claimant's own evidence showed he had not given examples to support his assertions. The tribunal noted the use of references to a Border Force Officer role, the absence of examples for the essential criteria, and the fact that the statement was consistent with other applications scored 2. It also found the claimant's reliance on previous public sector applications was not persuasive because those applications involved different jobs, criteria and markers.

Applying section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 and the comparison exercise under section 23, the tribunal asked whether the claimant would still have been scored below 4 if he had not indicated disability through the Disability Confident Scheme. It found that he would have been marked 2 in any event, so the rejection was not because of disability. The tribunal also referred to section 136 of the Equality Act 2010 and Hewage v Grampian Health Board, but said there was positive evidence on the facts and no need to infer discrimination. The claim was dismissed and no compensation or recommendation was made.