In person on 08 September 2020, no appearance on 09 September 2020 For the v Respondent — 2020

The claimant applied for a Medical Equipment Library Technician role on 28 July 2017, was interviewed on 17 August 2017, and was given a conditional offer on 24 and 30 August 2017. The respondent later withdrew the offer on 5 December 2017 after receiving references from previous employers. The tribunal found that the withdrawal process was driven by the content of those references and by concerns that the application form had not accurately reflected the claimant’s employment history, including a conduct dismissal from King’s College Hospital and adverse references from Norfolk and Norwich.

On the disability discrimination claim, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was disabled within section 6(1) Equality Act 2010 and that Mr Armstrong knew she was disabled in the limited sense of knowing she had a long-term illness or condition and had sought an interview under the respondent’s two-tick policy. It found that, despite that knowledge, the claimant’s disability played no part in the withdrawal of the offer. The tribunal held that the respondent’s sole reason was the references received after interview, and that the claimant had not established a prima facie case of unlawful disability discrimination.

On the protected disclosure claim, the tribunal referred to section 49B Employment Rights Act 1996 and found that the claimant had made a protected disclosure and that the respondent knew this from the application form and the interview. It nevertheless found that the protected disclosure played no part whatsoever in Mr Armstrong’s decision-making. The tribunal therefore dismissed that claim as well.

As a procedural matter, the tribunal refused the claimant’s late application to amend the claim to add religion or belief discrimination under the Selkent guidance, noting the lateness of the application, the lack of a written amendment, the absence of a reasonable explanation for delay, and the prejudice to the respondent. No separate remedy was awarded because both pleaded claims were dismissed.