Case 3307167/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr D McCrum, solicitor — 2020
- Case reference
- 3307167/2018
- Decision date
- 22 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrew Clarke
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr R Leslie, Mr P Miller
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a Black British man of African origin aged 41, applied for production work at the respondent’s Harlesden site and was also considered for warehouse work because Ms Vachova thought his application and CV showed relevant warehouse skills. The tribunal found he was told the warehouse question about a forklift licence was asked because he was being considered for that role as well, and that he was then considered only for production roles because he did not have such a licence. It rejected his allegation that the interview was abruptly terminated or that he was interrupted repeatedly, and found he scored 3 in only 2 of the 13 interview questions, which explained why no job was offered.
On the direct discrimination claims, the tribunal found no less favourable treatment because of age, race or sexual orientation. It accepted that Mr Adamovicz asked whether the claimant was married and had children, and commented that he had no responsibilities, but found those questions were asked to assess whether he could relocate and would have been asked of any applicant in the same position. The tribunal did not accept that these matters were linked to race, age or sexual orientation, and it said the age and workforce statistics did not support the claimant’s case. It also recorded that questions of this kind carry a real risk of unlawful discrimination and suggested the respondent should consider its guidance to interviewers.
The harassment claim failed because, although the questions about marriage and children were unwanted conduct, the tribunal found they did not relate to the protected characteristics relied on and did not have the required purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating a hostile environment. The victimisation claim also failed: the grievance of 2 March 2018 was a protected act, but Ms Frain rejected it because she considered it without merit, for reasons unrelated to the protected characteristics, and the tribunal found the non-offer of employment was because of the interview scores rather than the grievance. The tribunal therefore dismissed all claims.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination claim dismissed. The tribunal found the claimant’s age played no part in the recruitment decision, the interview questions were asked for reasons unrelated to age, and the grievance handling was not motivated by age. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim dismissed. The tribunal rejected the suggestion that the recruitment process or grievance handling was influenced by race and found no evidence of race-based motivation. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Direct sexual orientation discrimination claim dismissed. The tribunal found that the claimant’s later inference that the interview questions or comments reflected perceived homosexuality was not supported by the evidence. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Harassment | Harassment claim dismissed. The claim relied on the same interview questions and comments, and the tribunal found the conduct did not relate to the protected characteristics alleged and did not have the required purpose or effect. The claim was said to rely on race, age and sexual orientation. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation claim dismissed. The grievance of 2 March 2018 was a protected act, but the tribunal found the grievance was rejected on its merits for reasons unrelated to that act, and the job was not offered because of the interview scores; the non-offer also pre-dated the grievance. |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Equality Act 2010 s.26
- Equality Act 2010 s.27
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.