The claimant, who was of Asian origin, was employed by HMRC and was offered a role abroad. A resilience interview was part of the assessment conducted by an external expert. The claimant was questioned about his ability to deal with racism. It was contended in the assessment by the examining doctor that he would face racism in his new post. In the summary of the assessment it was highlighted that there was a likelihood of discrimination and that the claimant would suffer stress. The offer of work was subsequently withdrawn.

The claimant alleged race discrimination. The ET found that the claim for less favourable treatment because of race was made out. In dismissing the appeal, the EAT held that the claimant's race was a reason for the less favourable treatment, although it did not need to be the only one. The decision to withdraw the job offer was explicitly based on the claimant’s ethic background which was necessarily discriminatory.

EAT held that the claimant's race was indeed a reason for the less favourable treatment that she suffered. The assessment which was carried out and then the decision to withdraw the offer of work were explicitly based on this factor. Employers must be extremely careful when explaining the basis for not offering work to an employee and this case demonstrates that doing so based on ethnic background is not permissible.

The employer appeared to have genuine grounds for its decision here, yet that held no sway with the tribunal. Decisions such as this made on racial grounds will inevitably lead to adverse outcomes for employers if alternative explanations are not advanced.