Mr R Soares v Civil Aviation Authority — 2023

Mr R Soares applied for a Developer role with the Civil Aviation Authority that was advertised on 16 October 2020 at up to £50,000 per annum plus benefits. He was shortlisted, interviewed in two stages, and was told on 18 November 2020 that he had not been successful. He brought claims of direct race discrimination and victimisation, both arising from his belief that reference to Ofgem during the recruitment process explained the rejection.

On the direct race discrimination claim, the tribunal applied the burden of proof approach drawn from section 136 Equality Act 2010 and the authorities it cited, including Igen v Wong, Madarassay v Nomura International plc, Hewage v Grampian Health Board, and Network Rail Infrastructure v Griffiths-Henry. It found that the facts relied on by the Claimant, including his nationality and the fact that another candidate was said to be British, were not enough on their own to shift the burden. The tribunal preferred Miss Summerfield's evidence that her mention of Ofgem arose by chance after her husband overheard the Claimant's name, and it found that she treated the Ofgem connection as potentially positive because the CAA was a regulator. The tribunal accepted that the Claimant had omitted Ofgem from his CV and concluded that race played no part in the rejection.

The victimisation claim was based on the Claimant's earlier race discrimination proceedings against Ofgem, which the tribunal accepted were a protected act under section 27 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found, however, that there was no evidence that Miss Summerfield, Mr Kruger or Mr de la Pole knew that the Claimant had brought that claim, or that any such fact influenced the recruitment decision. It accepted the Respondent's evidence that the Claimant was rejected because of the way he performed in interview and because he did not meet the required standard, including concerns about stakeholder interaction, interpersonal skills and certain technical answers. The tribunal also found the recruitment exercise was conducted reasonably and fairly, and that the burden of proof did not move to the Respondent on the victimisation allegation.

The Respondent succeeded on a costs application under Rule 76(1)(a). The tribunal recorded the Claimant's conduct during the hearing and in correspondence as disruptive, abusive and unreasonable, including an offensive email to the Respondent's solicitor and repeated interruptions during the hearing. It ordered the Claimant to pay £3,000 within 14 days. The tribunal treated that figure as a modest costs award in light of the Claimant's conduct and the potential earnings of the role he had sought.