In person For the v Respondent — 2023

The claimant, who is Black British, applied for an Occupational Therapy Assistant role in December 2022 and was shortlisted and interviewed in February 2023. She scored 4 out of 10. The tribunal found that the two candidates offered the post were White British and scored higher, but it concluded that the decision not to appoint the claimant was based on her performance at interview, not on race. The panel considered that she had not sufficiently demonstrated understanding of safeguarding, working with children with complex needs, or the Mental Capacity Act, and it was entitled to reach that view on the evidence before it.

The tribunal rejected the allegation that the claimant was deliberately scored down or that the panel lied on the matrix. It found that the same interview process was applied to all candidates, that the notes were made contemporaneously, and that the scoring errors on redundant matrix categories affected all candidates equally and did not affect the appointment decisions. It also accepted the panel members' evidence that the claimant's score reflected their honest assessment of her interview answers, including their concerns about whether she had shown sufficient awareness of her own limitations and when to seek advice from a qualified occupational therapist.

The tribunal also rejected the claimant's complaints about not being offered an informal discussion and about the timing and content of written feedback. It found that a White candidate had also been unable to obtain a call back, that the failure to respond was due to work pressures, and that the written feedback was delayed because Ms Lamb was away and Mr Waltham had to fit the task around other commitments. The tribunal concluded that these matters were not because of race. It further found that the claimant's references to 2014/2015 recruitment exercises did not assist her 2023 claim, and that the allegation about 2019 ReFresh roles failed because no evidence had been produced that she applied for those roles.

Applying the burden of proof provisions, the tribunal held that the burden did not shift to the respondent. The direct race discrimination claim was therefore not upheld and no remedy was awarded.