Birmingham City Council v Jaddoo

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from a finding by the Employment Tribunal sitting in Glasgow that the local authority, hereinafter the Appellant, racially discriminated against the Respondent by failing to appoint him to a post for which he applied and was interviewed. The Tribunal concluded that the interview panel’s decision not to award the job to the Respondent was racially motivated. The Tribunal found that the Respondent was treated less favourably on racial grounds, noting that racial motivation need not be the sole cause but must be a major or substantial cause. The Tribunal referenced the King case to support the inference of racial discrimination in the absence of an adequate explanation by the employer. The Tribunal identified breaches of the employer’s code during the interview process, including failures to complete assessment sheets, lack of training of an interviewer, and questionable use of certain evaluative terms. Based on these breaches and the employer’s unsatisfactory explanations, the Tribunal drew an adverse inference of racial motivation influencing the interview assessment. The Appellant challenged this finding on appeal and the Respondent cross-appealed on a separate issue.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Employment Tribunal was correct in finding that the Appellant racially discriminated against the Respondent by failing to appoint him to the post after interview.
2. Whether the Tribunal appropriately drew an adverse inference of racial motivation based on the Appellant’s breaches of its own interview code and inadequate explanations.
3. The validity of the Tribunal’s assessment of damages awarded to the Respondent.
4. Whether the cross-appeal raised by the Respondent concerning a second issue related to selection process conduct and attitude had merit.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contended that there was no racial element in the decision not to appoint the Respondent.
• It was argued that the admitted breaches of the employer’s interview code were non-discriminatory as they applied equally to all candidates.
• The term "articulate" used in the interview assessment did not carry any racial connotation.
• Marking and other factors considered in the selection process were relevant to selection criteria but unrelated to race.
• Challenges were also raised to the Tribunal’s findings on damages, including issues with multiplier, salary levels, point of impact, promotional assessment, and the use of gross earnings.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent maintained that the Tribunal had correctly identified and applied the appropriate questions and was entitled to reach its conclusion of racial discrimination based on the evidence.
• In response to the cross-appeal, the Respondent asserted that no racial element influenced the second reference issue and that the Tribunal’s adverse findings regarding conduct or attitude were speculative and unsupported by evidence.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by recognizing the principle from King that an inference of racial discrimination may be drawn if an employer’s actions lack adequate explanation and there is a racial difference involved. However, the Court emphasized that this principle does not apply where there is no legitimate evidence of racial discrimination. Upon review, the Court found no basis to conclude that race played a role in the Respondent’s non-selection. The mere fact that the Respondent is a black African was insufficient to support the Tribunal’s inference of racial motivation. The Court characterized the Tribunal’s conclusion as perverse, indicating that no properly directed Tribunal could have reasonably found racial discrimination on the evidence presented. Regarding the damages assessment, the Court agreed with the Appellant’s submissions that the Tribunal’s approach was flawed in multiple respects and would have remitted the matter for reassessment if the appeal had remained live. The cross-appeal was dismissed on the basis that the Tribunal’s adverse findings about the Respondent’s conduct were speculative and unsupported. The Court also commented on the procedural conduct of the Tribunal hearing, noting that the hearing was lengthy and included issues irrelevant to the racial discrimination claim, highlighting the importance of focusing issues in advance, especially where parties are self-represented.

Holding and Implications

The Court ALLOWED the appeal, quashing the Employment Tribunal’s decision that found racial discrimination against the Appellant. The cross-appeal by the Respondent was REFUSED.

The direct effect of this decision is to overturn the Tribunal’s finding of racial discrimination and reject the Respondent’s cross-appeal on a related matter. The Court did not set any new legal precedent but reaffirmed the necessity for clear evidential basis before drawing inferences of racial discrimination. The Court also emphasized procedural guidance for future cases involving self-represented parties to focus issues early and avoid unnecessarily protracted hearings.