Ms H Allahwala v Home Office — 2023

The claimant's claims concerned two recruitment exercises: a 2019 Entry Clearance Manager role and a 2021 Chief Immigration Officer role. The respondent conceded that the claimant had made a protected disclosure in 2010 and that her 27 April 2018 grievance was a protected act for victimisation purposes.

For the 2021 Chief Immigration Officer role, the tribunal found that the claimant had not proved facts from which discrimination could be inferred. It accepted that the interviewers were unaware of the protected disclosure and that the claimant was not appointed because of her poor interview performance. The related direct discrimination and whistleblowing detriment claims were dismissed.

For the 2019 Entry Clearance Manager role, the tribunal found that the claimant's high score, the absence of records about Mrs Crowther's involvement, and the nature of that involvement shifted the burden in the direct discrimination claims. It nevertheless accepted that race, religion and disability played no part in the decision. The tribunal considered the victimisation claim more difficult, but found on balance that the respondent had shown the claimant was not refused the role because of her grievance. It also accepted that Mrs Crowther was unaware of the protected disclosure and dismissed the whistleblowing detriment claim.