Ms J Ward and Mr J McCaig Mr Pascal Daugert v OneRen — 2024

Mr Pascal Daugert, a French national aged 54, applied on 8 July 2022 for OneRen's 'friendship blanket' commission but was not shortlisted for interview on 11 July 2022. He then exchanged emails with Mr Weeks, Mr Payne and Ms Hollows about the feedback and the complaints process, and brought claims of direct age, race and sex discrimination, indirect disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment on age, race, sex and disability grounds, and victimisation. At the start of the hearing he withdrew the victimisation complaint. The tribunal held that complaints arising before 28 July 2022 were prima facie out of time, but it was just and equitable to hear the claim in full because the complaints were closely related, one complaint was within time, the delay was short, and there was no obvious evidential prejudice.

Applying Goodwin v Patent Office and J v DLA Piper UK LLP, the tribunal found that the claimant was a disabled person under section 6 Equality Act 2010 from 8 July 2022 onwards because he suffered from depression with substantial, recurring effects over a long period. It accepted the evidence of the claimant and Mr Taylor, and did not draw the adverse inference invited by the respondent from the absence of fuller medical records. However, the tribunal found that OneRen did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the claimant was disabled or that any of the pleaded provisions, criteria or practices put him at a substantial disadvantage.

The direct discrimination claims were dismissed. Under the Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi approach, the claimant did not establish primary facts from which age, race or sex discrimination could be inferred. The tribunal found that the assessment panel focused on applicants' evidence of quilting, embroidery and group-work experience, and that the comments describing the proposal as 'a little prescriptive' and saying the assessors were 'looking for something a little different' reflected the panel's view of the brief and the need for a different mix of skills, not bias based on age, nationality or sex.

The indirect disability discrimination claim failed because the alleged preference for textiles experience, and the 'patient, joyful, skilled, friendly and with a good sense of humour' wording, were not shown to put disabled people at a particular disadvantage or the claimant at that disadvantage. The reasonable-adjustments claim failed because the respondent did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the claimant's disability or of any substantial disadvantage caused by the pleaded practices, so the duty did not arise on the tribunal's findings. The harassment claim also failed: the tribunal accepted that the emails were unwanted from the claimant's perspective, but found they were civil and professional, did not relate to age, race, sex or disability, and were not objectively capable of creating the required hostile or degrading environment. All remaining claims were therefore dismissed, and no compensation was awarded.