Claimant v Scottish Police Authority — 2022

The claimant, who represented himself, brought a disability discrimination claim under s.13 of the Equality Act arising from the respondent's decision not to select him for interview for a Health and Safety Adviser post in Aberdeen. The tribunal accepted that he was a disabled person for EqA purposes. It found that the relevant recruitment criteria required a NEBOSH Diploma or equivalent and IOSH chartered membership, or active work towards it, and that applicants were also expected to complete the application form in line with the guidance. The claimant's Total Jobs CV disclosed a NEBOSH Diploma but did not state IOSH membership or chartered status, and his direct application wrongly said he was a Graduate Member of IOSH when he was not at the time, while also failing to complete section 9 in the form directed.

The tribunal rejected the submission that the claimant had not been sifted at all, or that the absence of his name from the shortlisting form and the timing of the rejection email supported an inference of discrimination. It accepted Mr Harvey's evidence that he had sifted the application and that the claimant was rejected because the application did not show chartered IOSH or active work towards it, did not demonstrate recent relevant health and safety experience since 2017, and was not completed in compliance with the guidance. The tribunal also accepted evidence from the vetting stage that the claimant was not a Graduate Member of IOSH when he applied, and that this would have been treated seriously had the process reached appointment.

On the comparison exercise, the tribunal held that candidate A was not a proper comparator because she also had a disability. It found that candidates B, C and D were materially different because they were reasonably assessed as meeting the essential criteria and as having more recent relevant experience, while candidate H was progressed past the sift but was not interviewed and was therefore not a relevant comparator. Applying s.13, s.23 and s.136 of the EqA, together with the authorities on burden of proof cited in argument, the tribunal concluded that the claimant had not established facts from which it could infer less favourable treatment because of disability. The claim was dismissed and no remedy was considered.