Automated Summary
Key Facts
Mr D Mukunde, a Black British man of African origin (41 years old), applied for a production role at United Biscuits (UK) Limited. His application indicated warehouse experience, prompting consideration for both production and warehouse roles. During the interview, he was asked about forklift truck licensing (which he lacked) and marital/child status. He scored 3 or above in only 2 of 13 interview questions, leading to no job offer. A grievance was raised over interview questions and rejected due to insufficient evidence of discrimination. The tribunal found no less favourable treatment linked to race, age, or sexual orientation.
Issues
- The claimant alleged victimisation after submitting a grievance. The tribunal found no evidence that the grievance rejection or the decision not to offer the job were linked to the protected act of submitting the grievance, as both outcomes were based on the claimant’s interview performance and the merits of the grievance.
- The claimant claimed harassment due to interview questions about marital status and children, which he alleged were motivated by race and age. The tribunal concluded that while the conduct was unwanted, it lacked the required purpose or effect to constitute harassment under the Equality Act 2010.
- The claimant alleged direct discrimination relying on the protected characteristics of race, age, and sexual orientation. The tribunal found no evidence that the respondent’s treatment of the claimant was linked to these characteristics, as the decision to not offer employment was based on his interview scores, not protected attributes.
Holdings
- Direct discrimination claims were rejected as the tribunal concluded the claimant’s treatment (e.g., interview questions, scoring, and grievance rejection) was not less favourable and unrelated to his race, age, or sexual orientation. The questions about marital status and responsibilities were deemed legitimate for assessing relocation potential, not discriminatory.
- The claims for unlawful discrimination based on race, age, and sexual orientation are dismissed. The tribunal found no evidence that the respondent’s treatment of the claimant was linked to these protected characteristics. The interview process, handling of the grievance, and rejection of the job application were determined to be unrelated to the claimant’s race, age, or perceived sexual orientation.
- Harassment claims were dismissed because the tribunal found the conduct (e.g., questions about marriage and children) did not relate to a protected characteristic and did not create an intimidating or offensive environment. The claimant’s perception of harassment emerged post-interview, not during the process.
- Victimisation claims were rejected as the grievance was handled based on its merits, not the claimant’s protected act of submitting a grievance. The job rejection occurred before the grievance was submitted and was due to low interview scores, not victimisation.
Legal Principles
The tribunal applied the Equality Act 2010 provisions on direct discrimination, harassment, and victimisation. Key legal tests included whether the claimant's treatment was linked to protected characteristics (race, age, sexual orientation), and whether the respondent's actions had the purpose or effect of violating the claimant's dignity or creating a hostile environment. The court emphasized that differential treatment must be motivated by a protected characteristic, not merely coincidental.
Cited Statute
Equality Act 2010
Judge Name
Andrew Clarke QC
Passage Text
- The grievance was rejected because Ms Frain considered it to be without merit. She did so for good reasons, being ones unrelated to the claimant's race, age or the protected characteristic of perceived sexual orientation. She did not reject the grievance because in raising it the claimant had made some such allegations.
- We accept that he did ask such a question. He was not hostile in so asking it. He asked it for the reason found above and he considered the claimant's answer to be helpful to his application. The question would have been asked of any applicant in the claimant's situation regardless of race, age or sexual orientation. There is no less favourable treatment established here and the claimant's treatment was unrelated to any of those protected characteristics.
- The claimant was not offered a TM2 manufacturing role due to his scores at interview. Those scores had nothing to do with his age, race or sexual orientation. Hence, there is no less favourable treatment made out and the scoring was unrelated to the protected characteristics.