Employers should be mindful of discrimination risks when recruiting as recent case shows where a female applicant, who is a mother, wins over £90k award in Employment Tribunal.
The claimant, Ms Lee, successfully applied for a position of real estate marketing manager with R & F Properties QS and had accepted the job offer on 27th September 2022. Both parties signed the employment contract on 29th September with the agreed start date of 1st November 2022.
Shortly before her start date, the claimant attended a virtual meeting with her new employer’s vice president. During the meeting, Ms Lee’s past experience and knowledge was discussed. Towards the end of the meeting, vice president asked Ms Lee, “out of the blue”, how old her children were, which Ms Lee answered as having a four year old and nearly a one year old. After the meeting, Ms Lee was told her job offer was withdrawn.
At the Tribunal hearing, the respondent argued that the job offer was withdrawn due to a headcount freeze from HR, decided independently of the interview. Evidence was presented that showed that senior HR manager wrote to deputy general manager querying the job post around the time Ms Lee had her meeting with the vice president. Deputy general manager advised HR that they needed to discuss the role with the headquarters (based in China) and apply the role as a headcount. The deputy general manager advised that the headquarters informed him there was a recruitment freeze, therefore Ms Lee could no longer be employed. He advised that the vice president had no control over headquarters decision and was surprised by their decision. Deputy had also added that he was surprised by this decision.
Employment Judge Musgrave-Cohen rejected that the instruction not to employ Ms Lee came from the headquarters, independently of the vice president. Deputy general manager could not explain why he has to inform headquarters of this job post on this occasion or why the headcount check was done only after the interview and job offer going out to Ms Lee. No evidence was presented by the respondent as to why there was a recruitment freeze around the time of Ms Lee’s job offer.
The Tribunal concluded that Ms Lee’s offer of employment was withdrawn directly on the basis of Ms Lee’s gender, adding that the same question would not have been asked of a man.
Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the respondent’s defence that the offer was rescinded because of effects on the wider property market in China as unlikely and that it was “more likely than not that the vice president gave the instruction to withdraw the contract of employment following her conversation with the claimant in which she asked about the age of the claimant’s children”.
It is important to remember that questions about an applicant’s personal situation (for example, marital status, whether the claimant has any children, age of the applicant or the family members) can be considered discriminatory and leave employers vulnerable to claims of discrimination on the assumption that the answers to such questions influenced the decision whether to hire the applicant.
