In person For the v Respondent — 2023

The claimant applied for a fixed-term Reward Specialist role and was initially not shortlisted because his application was treated as incomplete: the tribunal found that candidates were required to upload a CV with the application form, and that he had not done so when first assessed. After he queried the decision, he was shortlisted, invited to a fit call, and then invited to interview. The tribunal found that the fit call was applied to all shortlisted candidates, that Jon Forde took it because Keeley Clements was unavailable, and that the Friday timing of the call and the later interview did not amount to discrimination.

On the evidence about the interview, the tribunal rejected the claimant's account that the panel had already decided not to appoint him, that the interview was rushed to stop him using notes, that the questions were put in an aggressive or inappropriate way, or that Christine Bennett and Jon Forde used negative body language or snapped at him. It found that the interview panel asked the same core questions of all candidates, that the claimant was asked follow-up questions to identify what he personally had done, and that his performance was poor because he went off topic and did not give focused answers. The written and oral feedback after the interview was found to be consistent with that assessment.

The tribunal concluded that the only act which might, on its face, have been less favourable treatment was Ms Bennett's misspelling of the claimant's name in an email. It held that this was an innocent typographical error and not something done because of the claimant's sex or race. It also rejected the suggestion that the respondent's complaint handling covered up discrimination. The age and sexual orientation complaints had already been dismissed following an unless order dated 8 February 2022, and no part of the claim succeeded. The claims were dismissed in full.