Mr Z Kiani v Mr Ross Hill and 1 other — 2020

Mr Z Kiani applied for a Business Protection Adviser role with Essential Finance Group (UK) Limited and was interviewed by Mr Ross Hill on 22 January 2019. The tribunal found that the claimant had signed up through Platinum Recruitment Group, completed the employer's application form and recruitment tasks on the day, and was then interviewed by Mr Hill. It found there was a discrepancy between the claimant's CV and application form about education details, and accepted Mr Hill's evidence that his short question about GCSEs was prompted by that discrepancy and the importance of attention to detail in an FCA-regulated role.

On the direct age discrimination claim, the tribunal accepted that Mr Hill likely used the words about the claimant having a 24-year-old on one side and a 'jack-the-lad' on the other in the context of discussing whether the claimant would fit a customer-facing sales role. It found those words were sufficient to shift the burden of proof because they referred to youth, but held the respondent had shown a non-discriminatory reason for not progressing the claimant: he struggled to answer the competency-based questions, was not fully prepared, and did not appear well suited to the role. The tribunal also noted that Mr Hill was only the first-stage interviewer and could not himself offer employment.

On the harassment claim, the tribunal found the '24-year-old' and 'jack-the-lad' remarks were made and were related to age, and it was prepared to accept that the conduct was unwanted. However, it held that, taking account of the claimant's own contemporaneous feedback to the agency, his willingness to return for a second interview, the context of the discussion, and the claimant's own evidence that he later forgot how he felt and was only 'unimpressed', the conduct did not have the effect required by section 26 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal was not satisfied that Mr Hill said that a person of mid-thirties age had no energy or that he pointed out the claimant was 41; it found that part of the allegation was not made out.

On indirect age discrimination, the tribunal rejected the alleged PCPs of recruiting only more junior workers, only workers under 40, or only workers in the early stages of their career. It found no evidence that the respondent applied any such practice in the recruitment round and noted that the application form did not ask a candidate's age. All claims were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.