In Mr C P v AIMS Markets Limited the respondent is the digital capital markets division of the AIMS group, a provider of financial services. It started to grow more rapidly in 2020 and by mid-2021 it was decided to recruit a full-time person to deal with HR matters at every level. At that point, there were only 12 employees and no internal HR post.
Mike Jones (Managing Director) and Victoria Hopper, an external HR Consultant, were asked to carry out the administration side of the process. Mr Jones and Miss Hopper discussed the nature of the role and whether it needed a strategic senior level candidate or whether it was a more hands-on operational role. It was decided that the respondent needed someone who could take on the full range of HR responsibilities.
On this basis, the Mr Jones and Miss Hopper finalised the job description, modifying the company’s first draft. The budgeted salary was around £80,000.
The respondent received many applications, and the claimant was amongst the few selected for a pre-screening interview. It was clear from his application that he was a man.
Mr Jones had contacted the claimant on 13 July and asked if he could carry out the pre-screening interview on the spot. The claimant was on holiday with some friends, and they had just checked out of their hostel. However, he agreed to carry out the interview, which he conducted from the hostel lobby. His friends listened in (unseen) to most or all of the interview.
Mr Jones told the claimant that the respondent had an objective of building and creating diversity. He mentioned the ethnicity and sex of various existing employees. According to the claimant and his friends, Mr Jones referred to the company’s wish to hire ‘fewer white men’. Mr Jones cannot remember exactly what he said, but denies he put it like that and says his words have been misconstrued.
Mr Jones and Miss Hopper generally thought the claimant was a serious candidate who should progress to the first interview, although they had a couple of reservations. After discussing the interview together, the three interviewers had doubts. They felt the claimant talked a lot, and they wondered if he would be a good listener.
On 20 August 2021, Mr Jones emailed the claimant to say that they did not wish to proceed any further with him.
On 19 November 2021, the claimant wrote to Mr Jones alleging sex discrimination. He set out his account of events, including his allegation that ‘you stated that it was yours and the company’s intention to hire “fewer white men”’.
The Tribunal noted that it was ‘struck by the fact that Mr Jones made his comments to the claimant’s face. If it was Mr Jones’ intention not to recruit the claimant as a white man, or even just to prefer any other candidates who were not white men – or if he was aware that was the company’s intention – why would he have told the claimant words to the effect that the company hoped to employ fewer white men? We find it incredible that Mr Jones would have openly said what he did, if he had in mind that the claimant might not be recruited because he was a white man’.
The Tribunal further noted that ‘Mr Jones put the claimant through to the full interview stage’.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
