Housing Managers Overlooked For Promotion Due to Hiring Manager’s “Gut Feeling” Win £95K in Race Discrimination Claim

In Miss Natalie James and Miss Joanna Saine v London and Quadrant Housing Trust, two housing managers from ethnic minority backgrounds succeeded with their race discrimination claims. This comes after the tribunal found that unconscious racial bias influenced the employer’s hiring decision. Read on as we explore what transpired and unpick the employment tribunal’s judgment.

If you have any questions or believe you’ve faced similar discrimination at work, please don’t hesitate to get in touch. Redmans Solicitors are experts in the employment law sector. With our years of experience, we can answer your queries and advise on your possible next steps.

To begin, simply:

The Facts in Miss Natalie James and Miss Joanna Saine v London and Quadrant Housing Trust

Background of Housing Managers Discrimination Case

Miss Natalie James (“The First Claimant”) began working for London and Quadrant Housing Trust (“The Respondent”) on 2 April 2007, eventually becoming a housing manager in 2017. Miss Joanna Saine (“The Second Claimant”) commenced employment with the respondent on 20 March 2017, becoming a housing manager two years later.

On 18 February 2022, the housing managers applied for a promotion to take up one of the three new Head of Homeownership positions that had been created and advertised internally. Six internal applicants, including the claimants, applied for the roles, and each was interviewed on 9 March. 

The candidates’ answers were scored during the interviews, and the two highest performers filled two of the three available positions. Both successful applicants, who scored 15 and 13, were ‘white British’. The lowest performing candidate, who scored just 7,  was ‘white other’. As for the claimants, who were ‘white black British Caribbean’, and the final candidate, who was ‘black Caribbean’, they scored 11.5, 9 and 12.

At this stage, the third position wasn’t filled, and the respondent decided to advertise externally. All candidates learned whether they’d succeeded on 10 March, and the claimants requested copies of the interview notes the following day. The two housing managers also queried whether all three positions had been filled, learning that only two had.

A Grievance is Raised

Over the following weeks, both claimants raised a formal grievance about the interview process, alleging race discrimination in the workplace. The second claimant felt she and the other unsuccessful candidates from ethnic minorities were “competent managers”, leading to her belief that there were “racial undertones in the recruitment process”.

This led to a grievance meeting on 4 April. Here, Ms Francesca Purbrick, Director of Homeownership, explained the decision not to fill the final opening with an internal candidate. She said, “Not that they are not appointable… [I] didn’t feel 100% comfortable that I was sure of people and confident they can do it – if I had been, I would have appointed”. She added, “I am quite picky… Unless I am 100% certain that a person will do the job I won’t appoint”.

Subsequently, on 21 April, the outcome of the investigation was delivered to the housing managers. Although two breaches of the respondent’s recruitment and selection policy were found, neither grievance was upheld.

Housing Managers Make Workplace Discrimination Claims

A week later, the claimants appealed the decision, but this also proved unsuccessful on 30 May. As such, the claimants began ACAS early conciliation on 8 August. Once this was completed just over a month later, they initiated legal proceedings on 4 October. The housing managers’ claims included victimisation and race discrimination in the workplace.

Ultimately, the respondent decided not to fill the final vacancy and instead recruited for an administrative role due to the success of the current structure.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Once proceedings concluded, the employment tribunal made a judgment on the race discrimination case. They explained how the respondent’s decision not to appoint either of the housing managers to the remaining position resulted in them experiencing a detriment.

The tribunal added that the respondent’s selection wasn’t objective like it ought to have been. Instead of solely basing the appointments on a candidate’s match to the role-specific requirements and interview performance, Ms Purbrick’s subjective opinion was also considered.

Stating things like “[I] didn’t feel 100% comfortable” or “Unless I am 100% certain”, the tribunal ruled that Ms Purbrick’s opinion ran the risk of prejudice and stereotypes. When considering the claimants’ experience and performance during their interviews, the tribunal found this was the case.

Despite this, they didn’t believe Ms Purbrick had consciously treated the housing managers less favourably because of their race. Nevertheless, they ruled her decision amounted to unconscious racial bias. As such, the first and second claimants succeeded with their workplace discrimination claims and were awarded  £64,058.67 and £30,875.63 respectively.

Have You Suffered Discrimination in the Workplace UK?

If you’ve faced something similar to the housing managers and want to claim compensation for race discrimination, contact us now. Redmans Solicitors are employment law specialists who can discuss your case and assess your eligibility to claim. If you’re eligible, we can help guide you through the legal steps.

To find out more about the help we provide: