Mr J Penalva v Teesside University — 2023

Mr Penalva brought direct discrimination complaints arising from his interview for a principal lecturer (initial teacher education) post at Teesside University. He was shortlisted and interviewed on 8 June 2022, but was not selected. He alleged that the interview process and decision were discriminatory because of his sex, his race, and his philosophical belief in meritocracy.

The Tribunal heard evidence from two interview panel members, Dawn Westwood and Jo Irving-Walton, and from Phillip Radcliffe, the respondent's HR director. The claimant did not attend the hearing, so the respondent's evidence was unchallenged. The Tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that the claimant's presentation did not address the assigned topic, that his answers did not properly address the questions, and that his interview performance was poor. It found that the respondent had an adequate non-discriminatory explanation for not appointing him.

On sex and race, the Tribunal held that the claimant had not discharged the burden under section 136 Equality Act 2010. It found no evidence from which it could infer that the decision not to appoint him was because he was male or because he was Spanish. The fact that the panel comprised four women, without more, was not sufficient. The Tribunal cited Madarassy v Nomura International Plc in explaining that a difference in protected characteristic and a difference in treatment are not enough on their own.

On philosophical belief, the Tribunal said the claimant's stated belief in meritocracy did not satisfy the Grainger criteria for protection under section 10 Equality Act 2010. It also found that, even if the belief had been protected, the claimant had not proved any facts from which it could infer that he was treated less favourably because of that belief. All three complaints were dismissed under section 13 Equality Act 2010.