Case Law Round-up

  • Employment Tribunal
tribunal claim
Peninsula Logo

Peninsula Team, Peninsula Team

(Last updated )

We have seen a couple of cases recently where a job applicant has brought a tribunal claim after their offer of employment has been withdrawn. Let’s take a closer look at what happened and what the tribunal said.

Asking a job applicant the age of their children was direct sex discrimination

The claimant applied for a position with the respondent and after attending two interviews they were offered the role. The contract of employment was signed by both parties. Around a week before the claimant was due to start, an online meeting took place with the claimant and the respondent’s General Manager. At the start of the meeting the Senior HR Manager jumped on the call to introduce the parties and explained that the claimant would need to leave on time to attend to their children.

During the call, the General Manager asked the claimant about their work experience, the type of projects that they have worked on and the clients they have worked with previously. Towards the end of the call, the claimant was asked, “How old are your children”. The claimant responded by explaining that their eldest was four years old and the youngest was nearly one.

Days after the meeting, the claimant was told that the job offer was withdrawn. It was the respondent’s position that its Head Office had introduced a freeze on headcount which meant that it could not proceed with the employment of the claimant.

The claimant brought a claim for direct sex discrimination. They argued that they had been treated less favourably because of their sex as the signed contract of employment was withdrawn and because they were asked the age of their children during the meeting.

The ET concluded that the claimant’s sex was the reason the contract was withdrawn and that this and asking the age of the claimant’s children were acts of sex discrimination. The ET held that it was more likely than not that the claimant was asked this question because they were a woman and that the same question would not have been asked, out of the blue, of a man. The claimant was awarded £91,597.82.

(Lee v R&F Properties QS (UK) Co Ltd)

Check out BrAInbox for instant answers to questions like:

Should I keep notes of a recruitment interview?

When can I ask a job applicant about their health?

Can I ask if someone has a disability at interview stage?

Withdrawal of job offer because of Facebook comments was direct discrimination

The claimant was offered a job as a social worker subject to written references and a DBS check. The two references were unsatisfactory and lacking in detail. After the references were received, a manager for the respondent carried out a Google search of the claimant. The manager found that there were two articles, one published by the BBC and the other by The Guardian, which were about views the claimant had expressed previously on Facebook about the LGBTQI+ community and about same-sex marriage.

After reading these news articles, the respondent withdrew the conditional offer without any discussion with the claimant. The respondent explained to the claimant that they were “struggling to reconcile how the claimant’s views would align with the requirements and desired outcomes of the role”.    

The claimant brought several claims, one of which was a claim of direct discrimination because of their religion or belief. This claim was successful.

The Employment Tribunal (ET) found that the real reason the claimant was treated in this way was because of their expression of views rooted in their religious belief which impacted on the respondent’s concerns for the safeguarding of their service users. The ET held the claimant should have been given the opportunity to provide assurances and satisfy the respondent of their suitability for the role. That would have been a less intrusive way of proceeding according to the ET.

(Ngole v Touchstone Leeds)

Related articles

  • A car being filled with petrol

    Blog

    Bolt drivers classified as workers, not contractors

    A tribunal has ruled that Bolt drivers can be classified as workers which means the taxi hailing app will have to pay national minimum wage and holiday pay.

    Peninsula Logo
    Peninsula TeamPeninsula Team
    • Employment Contract
  • staff enjoying christmas celebrations holding gifts and wearing santa hats

    Blog

    On the first day of Xmas, HR gave to me: five festive queries

    While ‘tis the season to be jolly, sometimes HR hurdles can get in the way of a good time. So we thought we’d address the most commonly asked questions we tend to get from employers around this time of year.

    Peninsula Logo
    Peninsula TeamPeninsula Team
    • HR Policies Documentation
  • recruitment

    Blog

    Employment groups raise questions about Budget's impact on jobs

    The recent Budget was generally agreed to be one of the largest and most significant of recent years and its details have since been the subject of considerable scrutiny as experts examined the likely implications.

    Peninsula Logo
    Peninsula TeamPeninsula Team
    • Employment Contract

Try Brainbox for free today

When AI meets 40 years of Peninsula expertise... you get instant, expert answers to your HR and Health & Safety questions

Sign up to our newsletter

Get the latest news & tips that matter most to your business in our monthly newsletter.