Facts

Mr Taheri applied for a sales executive position at a Perry Motor Sales Limited (“PMS”) dealership. He was aged 58 at the time.

PMS had two different recruitment methods. One involved applicants sending in their CVs and being shortlisted for interview. The other method, which was used by Mr Taheri, involved being invited to an assessment centre. This centre was under the organisation of an outsourced provider.

Most of the candidates at the assessment centre were younger than Mr Taheri. Mr Taheri did not make it past the first exercise at the assessment centre.

He brought age and race discrimination claims, arguing that he was unsuccessful due to his age and/or his ‘Middle Eastern origin and Iranian ancestry.’

Decision

His age discrimination claim was dismissed by the Employment Tribunal. It was held to have no reasonable prospect of success.

The Employment Tribunal held that Mr Taheri was unsuccessful because of his performance. The group exercise which led to Mr Taheri not making it further at the assessment centre was designed to remove people who acted exactly like he did. He was described as ‘overbearing’ and as dominating the discussion. The assessors unanimously decided to not progress him further.

The Employment Tribunal held that the burden of proof had not moved from Mr Taheri to PMS when it came to showing age discrimination.  Mr Taheri needed to show ‘something more’ than a difference in age and a difference in treatment. This ‘something more’ could have been Mr Taheri’s claim that no one above the age of 35 made it past the first exercise at the assessment centre. However, a candidate above 50 was successful.

The Employment Tribunal also clarified that PMS had proved that Mr Taheri’s age had nothing to do with the decision to reject him, in case they were wrong on the burden of proof not being discharged. ‘The claimant’s age was neither a conscious nor a sub-conscious part of their thinking.’ It also helped that Mr Taheri was now awaiting a second interview, after applying by CV to another of PMS’ dealerships.

The race discrimination claim was dismissed for similar reasons, with the Employment Tribunal holding it vexatious. A costs order of £1,000 was made against Mr Taheri.

The judgment is available here.

Mr D Taheri v Perry Motor Sales Ltd: 3304326/2018