In James and another v London & Quadrant Housing Trust, an employment tribunal upheld the race discrimination claims of two housing managers after finding that they had not been selected for two senior roles because of the Trust’s unconscious bias.
What happened?
Miss James (J) and Miss Saine (S) were employed as housing managers by Quadrant Housing Trust, one of the UK’s largest providers of affordable housing.
In February 2022, J and S applied for new senior roles after they were advertised internally. Six internal candidates were invited to interview for the roles. Following interviews on 9th March 2022, the Trust appointed two candidates and advertised the third vacancy externally. The two successful candidates are ‘white British’. J and S, who are ‘white black British Caribbean’, asked for copies of their interview notes.
They brought race discrimination claims in the employment tribunal after the Trust failed to uphold their internal grievances.
What did the tribunal decide?
The tribunal found that the Trust had not conducted an objective selection process. While selection decisions will inevitably involve a degree of judgment, it is good practice to base such judgments on objective criteria. The tribunal concluded that subjective views had influenced the Trust’s selection process and were contrary to the Equality and Human Rights Commission Code of Practice on Employment.
The tribunal concluded that, while the Trust had not consciously treated J and S less favourably because of race, it had subjected them to race discrimination unconsciously.
The tribunal awarded compensation of £64,059 to J and £31,876 to S. Both compensation awards included £20,000 for injury to feelings.
Why did the tribunal make this decision?
The tribunal found that one person, the Director of Home Ownership, had made the appointment decisions, with the second panel member ‘simply agreeing’ with her view. This increased the risk that the decision was based on prejudice and stereotypes.
The tribunal found that the Director’s appointment decisions were based on her ‘gut feelings’ of who she thought would ‘fit in’ and who she was ‘100% sure of’ and not based on matching a candidate’s performance during the selection process with the requirements of the role. The tribunal said that J and S had more managerial experience than one of the successful candidates, and their performance at the interview was similar to both successful candidates.
After noting that the Trust had supplied inconsistent, incorrect, and misleading evidence about the scoring process, the tribunal concluded that the burden of proof shifted to the Trust. The Trust had not discharged this burden by proving that the decision not to appoint J and S had nothing to do with race.
What can we learn?
Training
Ensure that line managers receive training on the importance of identifying and tackling any unconscious biases that may affect decisions about recruitment, promotion, and other workplace matters.
Objective
Managers should conduct an interview process based on objective assessment, free of any unconscious bias that could influence the outcome.
Notes
Take notes during the interview to assist in reviewing the candidates’ performance after the interviews have finished and to ensure consistency in the scoring against the selection criteria.
Check
Check that your recruitment policies, procedures, and processes are fair and protect job applicants against discrimination. Then, put in place an action plan to create and sustain a diverse and inclusive workplace.
Source: Housing association employees win race discrimination case | EHRC
