The claimant applied for the job of Security Controller which was advertised by the respondent. The role have involved CCTV work as well as responding to ‘crisis’ situations.  At the time of making his application the Claimant was 58.   The claimant’s background was having had five years in a security role examining CCTV.  He was noted to have strong IT skills, degrees, multiple languages and good analytical skills.

Including the claimant there were five applicants.   There was an English man in his early 30s, a Pakistani man in his mid-40s, a Romanian woman in her early 20s and a South African man in his late 30s.  The claimant was the oldest and after attending an assessment day his application was rejected.  He brought claims for age discrimination as he was the oldest and race discrimination on the basis of his Chinese ethnicity.

The Employment Tribunal examined the reason the application was rejected with it being found that two other candidates had performed better in the overall assessment.  It was noted that the claimant had obtained the second highest score in the interview but when it came to an intelligence reporting assessment he had scored well in the questions he attempted but he did not complete an essay question which meant he scored zero points for that part.

The claimant also failed to perform well in an Excel Database exercise which went against the fact that he stated he had good spreadsheet skills on his CV.  Therefore, the Tribunal found that the burden of proof had not shifted to the respondent in this case and the claimant was not appointed because there were other candidates who had performed better - it had nothing to do with the age or the race of the claimant.  Furthermore, it was notable that those involved in the assessment stage had no awareness of the claimant’s age.

As a result, the claimant’s claims based upon age and race discrimination were dismissed.

Practical Lessons

This case serves as a reminder for ensuring that appointment processes are carried out with objective scoring in mind. The fact that the respondent retained scores for all of the assessments carried out it meant they were able to put forward a strong defence against accusations made in relation to age and race.  Such accusations are easy to make when it comes to a job competition especially when it is someone of a younger age or different race that wins the competition.   Therefore, employers will want to ensure that they have all evidence available if there happens to be a challenge to that process.
https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mr-y-li-v-vision-security-group-ltd-2205390-2018