Mr A E Madu v Loughborough College — 2022

Mr Madu brought three direct race discrimination complaints arising from recruitment to a part-time lecturer post in health and social care at Loughborough College. The tribunal found that he was interviewed because the college considered him a potentially suitable candidate, not as a token or to justify a pre-selected appointment. It accepted the evidence of the college witnesses, rejected Mr Madu's evidence where it considered him unable to accept alternative explanations, and noted that the interview and microteach process was based on common scoring templates used for all candidates.

On the complaint about the interview time, the tribunal found that Mr Madu had asked only for his interview to be moved later on the same day so that he could travel more cheaply and have a later start, whereas DW had asked for a different day because they could not attend the original date. The panel had teaching commitments and could not move the interview time later. The tribunal held that DW was not a proper comparator on the facts, that there was no evidence race affected the refusal, and that this part of the claim was also out of time with no just and equitable basis to extend time.

On the non-appointment complaint, the tribunal found that AB scored highest overall, with Mr Madu ahead of DW but well behind AB. It accepted that the microteach presentation had technical problems, but the panel adjusted the marking criteria for all candidates so that no one was disadvantaged on equipment, resources or timekeeping. The tribunal rejected the suggestion that the scoring was orchestrated or that AB was a 'special candidate', and found no evidence that race influenced the appointment decision. It also held this complaint was out of time and refused to extend time.

On the feedback and grievance correspondence, the tribunal found that the claimant's emails did not allege race discrimination on any reasonable reading. It held that the respondent did provide feedback, that the delay was explained by workload and year-end pressures, and that the grievance process disclosed no evidence of racial discrimination. All claims were dismissed.