Facts

Mr Rana began working for the Royal Mail Group in 1999. In 2017 he was working in the Resourcing Department of Heathrow Worldwide Distribution Centre in HR administration. He applied for a Deputy Manager role in August 2017. He enclosed a CV which included his date of birth on it. He was 56 at the time.

He attended an assessment in September 2017 with two assessors: Mr Tovey and Ms Sadykova. The assessment comprised a presentation and an interview. Mr Rana struggled during the presentation and did not manage to finish it in time. He scored below average.

The interview was broken down into three sections: general interview questions, problem solving and teamwork, and leadership and resilience. During the section on leadership and resilience Mr Rana gave an example of his time at school and was asked by Mr Tovey “How long ago was this?”. Mr Rana replied that it was 42 years ago. Mr Rana received average or below average scores for all three parts of the interview.

In October 2017, Mr Rana was informed that his application was unsuccessful. He brought claims of harassment related to age and direct age discrimination. He believed that his age had been a factor in his failure to be appointed to the role.

Decision

The Employment Tribunal (ET) dismissed both claims.

Harassment

Mr Rana alleged that he had been asked his age and about his retirement plans by Mr Tovey during the interview, but the ET found no evidence of this.

The ET agreed that the comment relating to the date of the example given was made but this related to the currency of the example Mr Rana had given, not his age. The ET added that “we think it is unlikely though that Mr Tovey would then have gone on to ask about [Mr Rana’s] age” because Mr Rana had put his date of birth on his CV and Mr Tovey had worked with him for some time and would have had a good idea of his age.

Direct age discrimination 

Because the comments relating to his age and retirement plans were the only evidence Mr Rana had referred to that suggested he had been treated less favourably because of his age, the ET rejected the claim of direct age discrimination. Mr Rana had failed to show facts from which discrimination could be inferred, so the burden of proof did not shift to Royal Mail Group.

The ET concluded that Mr Rana was unsuccessful because of his “poor performance on the presentation and at the interview” and not because there was any less favourable treatment because of his age. It noted that the average ages of the successful and unsuccessful candidates was about the same.

The judgment is available here.

Mr Neel Rana v Royal Mail Group Ltd: 3304619/2018