The claimant had been employed on a part-time basis as a project manager. There was a meeting between the claimant and the HR manager in the run-up to the expected termination of her fixed-term contract and it was made clear that the post would soon end due to lack of EU funding. The only viable option was to apply for a different maternity post. 

An informal meeting was held with the claimant after which one of the managers e-mailed the other setting out 5 reasons why he believed she was incompatible for the role. She was then unsuccessfully interviewed and alleged that the respondent failed to appoint her as a result of the concerns that she would wish to work part-time or in a job share arrangement. The tribunal rejected this argument, noting that the claimant knew the post was regarded as a full-time and that she stated in her claim form she “proceeded to formal interview on the basis of my willingness to work full-time”. The claim of indirect sex discrimination is therefore dismissed. 

Practical lessons

The tribunal held that the respondent acted appropriately by holding an informal meeting between the claimant and 2 managers days prior to formal interview to discuss her suitability. It highlighted the fact that the respondent still decided to interview the claimant formally as evidence of impartiality. It also stressed that the respondent considered the claimant initially unsuitable only based on the information provided in the informal meeting but wanted to ‘probe’ further in interview. 

It is difficult to imagine how such a negative first impression could realistically have led the claimant to have been offered the job, but the respondent certainly helped itself by offering her another chance. In reality the facts showed the claimant was unqualified compared to the successful candidate anyway. However, this case shows that an employer can informally hold a pre-interview meeting with a candidate then hold a formal interview without it having ‘a predetermined result’. 

The tribunal was convinced that the respondent took a ‘clean slate’ approach to the interview; largely based on the written notes of the meetings and the content of internal e-mails. In such situations employers would be well advised to make a concerted effort to keep a written note and be careful that there is no suggestion that the ultimate interview decision had been reached before the panel met.