The respondent advertised the post of Support Services Manager and the claimant applied for it in October 2019.    The respondent is a charitable organisation based in the Colin area of West Belfast, providing support for women and children.   The claimant was interviewed for the role and was the highest scoring candidate.  Later that day, Ms Loughran, the Chief Executive Officer of the organisation, phoned and congratulated the claimant on her success at interview.   The claimant outlined at that point that she would want to discuss some of the terms and conditions of the role. 

The following day the claimant met Ms Loughran at the respondent’s premises. The claimant asked if there was any flexibility when it came to school drop-off and pick-up times for certain parts of the month.  There was a dispute over the response to this query with the respondent stating that they would try to accommodate the request whereas the claimant stated she was told that they would be flexible in relation to childcare.  The Tribunal found that the latter was the most likely set of facts.   When the claimant and Ms Loughran were discussing the terms and conditions it was found that Ms Loughran pointed to the maternity leave provisions stating they were ‘not great’.  The claimant also queried the salary and was asked to place any request in writing.  She duly did so. The request was rejected but the claimant still sought to take up the role.   

The claimant was given a formal offer on the 30thOctober 2019(subject to references) which she accepted.  However, on 8th November 2019 the claimant was emailed stating that she did not meet all of the conditions to take up the post, so they were no longer able to offer her the position.   It was also noted that she would be paid notice pay instead of a four weeks’ notice period. The claimant requested further information as to why she would not be taking up the position, but no response was received. As a result, the claimant brought a claim alleging sex and age discrimination.  A further claim of automatic unfair dismissal was later withdrawn by the claimant.  

The Tribunal found that the claimant discharged the burden of proof in relation to the discriminatory elements by virtue of the real reasons for removing the offer not being put forward, the focus on the maternity aspects of the role and the ‘concern’ raised by Ms Loughran when it came to flexibility for school pickups.  The respondent advanced many reasons for the offer being removed such as the assertion that the claimant made too many requests before commencing work and that the claimant had little regard for the needs of the organisation.  The Tribunal rejected these reasons stating that there was no evidential basis to them.  Therefore, discrimination was inferred as a result of the absence of any satisfactory explanation for the treatment suffered by the claimant.  As a result, the claimant was awarded £8,500 for hurt feelings. 

Practical Lessons 

This case demonstrates the importance that a respondent has evidenced reasons for a decision being made.  In this case, the respondent focused on the claimant not discharging the initial burden.  However, as the claimant did discharge that initial burden it then fell to the respondent to show why they had taken the decision to remove the job offer.  As no satisfactory reason could be put forward the Tribunal was able to infer discrimination especially bearing in mind that the issues relating to flexibility for school pick-ups and the respondent had cited that the maternity provisions were not very good. 

NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website: 
http://www.employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/