Mr R Rashid v The Commissioners of H M Revenue and Customs — 2019

Mr Rashid applied for a Criminal Investigator post with HMRC and reached interview after passing the online tests and sift. The tribunal found the interview was divided into three parts and that the claimant scored 5 on the scenario question, 3 on the competency question, and 3 on the skills question. A score of at least 4 was required in each part for appointment.

The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that the panel did not have the claimant's application form and that the same process was used for all candidates. It found the claimant's score for the scenario question was recorded later as 4 in the spreadsheet through an administrative error, but that this did not affect the decision because the panel's contemporaneous scores remained 5, 3 and 3. It also found the panel had no reliable knowledge of the claimant's religion, and did not accept the allegation that an age-related comment was made at interview.

Applying section 13, section 39(1)(c) and the burden of proof provisions in section 136 of the Equality Act 2010, and referring to Wong v Igen Ltd, Madarassy v Nomura International plc, Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd and Nagarajan v London Regional Transport, the tribunal held that the claimant had not established primary facts from which discrimination could be inferred. The matters relied on about the building, recruitment process, diversity statistics, trigger notes, moderation and transparency were not enough to shift the burden of proof. In any event, the tribunal found the reason the claimant was not appointed was that he scored below threshold on questions 2 and 3, not his race, perceived religion or age. Because the claimant failed at the liability stage, the tribunal did not need to determine the age justification issue.