Case 3312324/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 3312324/2023
- Decision date
- 21 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore
- Panel members
- Mr D Bean, Ms B Handley-Howorth
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, who is of Romanian nationality and described himself as white, non-British ethnicity, brought race discrimination complaints after he was not appointed to an Area Manager role in July 2023. The tribunal found that the respondent was entitled to decide that appointment would be based solely on interview performance and that the presentation would carry 50% of the assessment.
The tribunal accepted evidence that the claimant's presentation was disjointed and that aspects of his answers lacked clarity. It also considered the lack of a scoring matrix, the successful candidate's prior connection with one interviewer, and workforce diversity data, but found these matters did not establish facts from which discrimination could be concluded.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant was not the strongest candidate on the day and dismissed the complaints of direct and indirect race discrimination.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination allegations concerning the July 2023 Area Manager recruitment process, including not offering the claimant the role, alleged failure to follow point 13.12 of the recruitment policy, and alleged failure to provide written feedback. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Indirect race discrimination allegation based on an alleged practice of not following point 13.12 of the respondent's recruitment policy. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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.