Employment Tribunal Finds Error in Race Discrimination Case Against Health Secretary
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has overturned a decision in a race discrimination case, finding errors in the original tribunal's analysis of a recruitment exercise.
• public
Race Discrimination Claim Remitted After Tribunal Error
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that an Employment Tribunal made errors in its assessment of a race discrimination claim brought by Dr. Nicholas Jones against The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. The case, initially dismissed, involves a complaint of direct discrimination during a recruitment process for an Assistant Business Development Manager role at Public Health England.
Background of the Case
Dr. Jones, of African-Caribbean descent, applied for the position in March 2019. He was interviewed but ultimately unsuccessful; the role was offered to a white candidate. Dr Jones contended that his non-appointment was due to race discrimination.
The initial Employment Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding it was submitted out of time and lacking merit. However, this decision was appealed. After referral from the Court of Appeal, the EAT reconsidered the case.
EAT's Findings and Analysis
The EAT identified key flaws in the original tribunal's analysis. Specifically, the EAT criticised the tribunal's approach to comparing Dr. Jones with the successful candidate, referred to as "Candidate B." The original tribunal deemed Candidate B unsuitable as a direct comparator due to perceived differences in qualifications and experience. The EAT found this incompatible with the original Employment Tribunal's assessment that the interview process began with a “clean sheet” for candidates.
The EAT found the Employment Tribunal erred in not comparing the candidates' scores and answers during the interview process. Further, the original Employment Tribunal failed to adequately consider whether Candidate B would have passed the initial sift stage but for favourable treatment. The EAT highlighted a factual error, noting that Candidate B was incorrectly described as a “rehabilitation manager” when he was a "Rehabilitation Assistant Practitioner".
Remittal for Redetermination
As a result of these findings, the EAT allowed the appeal and ordered a full redetermination of the claim by a different Employment Tribunal. The EAT deemed the original decision "fundamentally flawed."
This case underscores the importance of a thorough and accurate comparative exercise in discrimination claims, ensuring that all relevant factors are considered when assessing whether unlawful discrimination has occurred.
Read the entire judgement here: Dr Nicholas Jones v The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2025] EAT 76
