The respondent, a firm of solicitors, advertised a ‘Level Executive’ position in 2019.  The claimant applied for the role in April 2019 and was informed by a letter dated 1st May 2019 that he was not shortlisted for the role.   The claimant sought feedback (in July 2019) as to why he had not been shortlisted.   The respondent replied some 6 days later outlining that the claimant was not shortlisted because he did not possess a law degree.   On the advertisement it stated that a law degree and/or experience of working in a legal environment would be an advantage.  However, the respondent stated that they enhanced the criteria so that a law degree was essential.  The claimant outlined that he had studied law but did not complete his law degree.

The claimant presented a claim in October 2019 alleging direct age discrimination.  The respondent resisted the claim in its entirety.  The first issue raised was whether the claim was presented within the three month time limit.  The claimant stated in his evidence that he had suspicions that there was age discrimination from when he heard that he was unsuccessful, that being the 1st May 2019.  This was some 5 months prior to presenting his claim.  The claimant argued that the time did not start to run until July 2019, when he was told that he was not shortlisted because he did not have a law degree.   The Tribunal found, however, that time started to run on 1st May 2019, on the basis that the claimant had a suspicion that there had been age discrimination.  The Tribunal further noted that there were no factors leading to a just and equitable extension.  The claimant in his evidence stated that any delay would have been from agonising over whether or not to sue the respondent as he stated they were one of the best employment practices in Belfast and he would ‘have a fight on his hands’.  As this was not sufficient to grant an extension of time, the claim was dismissed.

Practical Lessons

This has been the second case in which the claimant has brought a claim relating to his unsuccessful job application (the first reported case being Wilson v Mark Mason Employment Lawyer).   In advertising and running the process for hiring employers must be cognisant of ensuring that it is a fair process.  There was nothing to suggest in this case that it was an unfair process. The case does provide a lesson when it comes to time limits and that a suspicion of some element of discrimination will mean that the time begins to run from that point.  That worked against the claimant in this case but was the only sensible solution as to allow for some later date based upon when it ‘crystallised’ in the claimant’s mind as argued would be too flexible and too favourable for claimants.

NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website:

http://www.employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/