Case 4113130/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Members Elizabeth Farrell Martha McAllister Ms Jennifer Burton v Lifelink — 2021
- Case reference
- 4113130/2019
- Decision date
- 22 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rory McPherson
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- Elizabeth Farrell, Martha McAllister
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Members Elizabeth Farrell Martha McAllister Ms Jennifer Burton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Burton, a citizen of the USA, applied in October 2019 for a counsellor role with Lifelink. The respondent's application form required applicants to complete the form in full and stated that CVs, cover letters and attached documents would not be considered at shortlisting. On 8 October 2019 Lifelink told her it could not progress the application because it did not have enough information to verify that her overseas course structure and content met its recruitment requirements, said this was not a reflection on her training or qualifications, and invited her to resubmit once BACP registration was concluded. The tribunal found that this was not an absolute rejection.
Applying s.13 Equality Act 2010, the tribunal rejected the direct race discrimination claim. It held that the treatment in the 8 and 16 October emails was not less favourable treatment compared with a proper comparator, and that the reason was not race or race more generally. The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that Lifelink required BACP membership or equivalent because of its organisational membership of BACP, the standards and ethics associated with that membership, and the requirements of its service contracts.
Applying s.19 Equality Act 2010, the tribunal held that the relevant practice was the respondent's approach of not progressing an application where it did not have sufficient information to verify a course structure and content, while inviting the applicant to reapply once BACP registration had been obtained. It found that practice to be a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of reassurance to clients and contracting bodies about standards, supervision, CPD and disclosure arrangements. The tribunal accepted that individual BACP membership could have been achieved before the first interview date of 18 October 2019 or before the rolling interview process ended, declined to draw any adverse inference from the absence of a separate decision record, and made no recommendation.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination under s.13 EA 2010; the tribunal held the 8 and 16 October 2019 communications were not less favourable treatment and were not because of race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Indirect race discrimination under s.19 EA 2010; the tribunal held the respondent's practice was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.19 Equality Act 2010
- s.23 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Laing v Manchester City Council
- Anya v University of Oxford
- Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
- R (E) v Governing Body of JFS
- Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
- Essop and others v Home Office (UK Border Agency); Naeem v Secretary of State for Justice
- Wetton v Ahmed
- Delambre
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.