In person For the v Mr A Nemati (Director) — 2020

The claimant brought a sex discrimination claim under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 arising from an Indeed advert for “Female leaflet distributors”. The tribunal accepted that the advert had originally been for leaflet distributors, that it was changed in September 2019 to add a female-only requirement, and that there was no occupational requirement for a female to distribute leaflets outside schools. On that basis, the tribunal found that the advert treated male and female applicants differently.

The claimant applied on 11 October 2019 and said he was then told by telephone that his application was rejected because a female was necessary. The majority, however, held that he was not genuinely seeking the role. In reaching that conclusion, they relied on his qualifications, the modest part-time nature of the work, the travel involved, the evidence of other applications, his credibility, and the pattern of similar claims. The majority therefore found that he had no desire to fill the vacancy and had not been subjected to less favourable treatment.

Mr Sagar dissented. He would have given the claimant the benefit of the doubt, found that the claimant did desire the vacancy, and would have made a declaration that the claimant had been discriminated against. The majority judgment nevertheless dismissed the claim.

Because the claim was dismissed, no award was made. In the alternative reasoning after addressing Mr Sagar’s view, the tribunal said the claimant would not have been offered the job in any event, that loss of earnings would have been nil, and that there was no injury to feelings. The tribunal referred to section 13 and section 124 of the Equality Act 2010, the Vento guidelines, and the cases of Keane v Investigo and Berry v Recruitment Revolution in its reasoning about genuine interest and detriment.