Recruitment Discrimination

“It’s fine we followed the scoring matrix, there’s no discrimination here…”

That line didn’t hold up in Dr Nicholas Jones v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2025] EAT 76: a case that’s quietly reshaping how tribunals look at recruitment discrimination.

It’s a reminder that a ‘fair process’ on paper doesn’t always mean a lawful one in practice.

And if you’re in HR or advising on recruitment, this one’s a wake-up call.

What happened?

  • Dr Nicholas Jones, who is of African-Caribbean descent, applied for an Assistant Business Development Manager role at Public Health England.
  • He passed the paper sift, reached the final interview, and scored second-highest out of four candidates.
  • The top scorer, a white candidate got the job.
  •   Dr Jones alleged direct race discrimination.

The Employment Tribunal (ET) initially rejected his claim, saying:

  • The recruitment process was objective and standardised;
  • The “sift” and interview stages were separate; and
  • The successful candidate was too different to be a valid comparator.

Case closed… or so it seemed.

But Dr Jones appealed.

After years of litigation, the Court of Appeal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) both found serious legal errors in how the original Tribunal handled the case.

Here’s what went wrong

  • The Tribunal treated the “sift” and “interview” stages as completely separate and refused to compare Dr Jones’s and the successful candidate’s answers or scores.
  • It said there were “too many differences” between them to make a fair comparison despite both being assessed on the same scoring matrix by the same interviewers.
  • It even misdescribed the successful candidate’s background — calling him a “rehabilitation manager” when he was actually a rehabilitation assistant practitioner.

The Eat called this reasoning a irrational.

What the EAT said

  • The Tribunal should have compared how Dr Jones was scored against how the successful candidate was scored that’s the whole point of the discrimination analysis.
  • It failed to consider whether the successful (white) candidate could have been an actual or evidential comparator.
  • And it ignored the possibility that, if the successful candidate was favoured at the sift stage because of race, that advantage could have affected the entire outcome.

The EAT concluded that the case was legally flawed and must be reheard by a new Tribunal.

Why this matters for HR and recruitment:

  • Recruitment cases are increasingly about what the paperwork proves, not what managers say.
  • Even small inconsistencies like overstated job titles or missing reasoning in scoring can create the impression of bias.
  • The EAT didn’t say Public Health England was racist. But it did say the Tribunal didn’t do the legal work properly to test whether race might have influenced the outcome.

That’s the difference between “it looks fine” and “we can prove it’s fair.”

What HR teams should do now

  • Keep your paperwork watertight. Make sure every score, note and comment are stored and justified against objective criteria.
  • Define “equivalent experience” before shortlisting. Don’t decide what counts as “equivalent” after applications are in.
  • That’s how bias creeps in. Double-check job titles and facts. An inaccurate description in evidence (like calling someone a manager when they’re not) can destroy credibility.
  • Review how you handle ties and near-miss candidates. If the difference in scores is marginal, document clearly why the top candidate got the offer.

The Takeaway

Recruitment fairness isn’t just about process, it’s about proof.

Structured scoring systems are great, but they don’t immunise you from discrimination claims.

They simply shift the spotlight to the quality and consistency of your evidence.

When two appointable candidates are neck-and-neck, even subtle inconsistencies in how they’re assessed can tip a case from “fair hiring” to “unlawful discrimination.”

So, before your next recruitment round, ask yourself:

Could we defend every decision if an Employment Tribunal put it under a microscope?

Get in touch today and say goodbye to that minefield of potential claims!