Mr. Aslam, a former Metroline employee, applied to another bus company on 13 April 2019, disclosing that he suffered from partial hearing loss, depression, anxiety, insomnia and stress, and was interviewed on 14 May 2019. He disclosed that he had been dismissed by his former employer on the grounds of capability and was actively pursuing a tribunal claim.

He was conditionally offered a role and attended induction, although the offer was subsequently withdrawn, and no reference had been obtained from Metroline despite numerous requests. Moreover, he was not allowed to work shifts before he attended induction, while two other candidates were permitted to do so. During the induction process, the claimant emailed the respondent to enquire whether he was being treated differently from the other candidates for the job because of his race. This, coupled with the tribunal claim, had led to a withdrawal of the offer on 20 June 2019. 

The claimant claimed direct race discrimination and victimisation after he had informed the respondent about a tribunal claim against Metroline. The Employment Tribunal found that the job offer had been withdrawn because the respondent believed the claimant was likely to be protected under the Equality Act 2010, Section 27(1)(b) and upheld the claimant’s victimisation claim, although it subsequently reversed its judgement and dismissed the claim. The claimant appealed and the original judgement was reinstated. 

The judgement serves as a clear warning to employers, as withdrawing a job offer or taking other detrimental action based on a person's history of bringing claims, or a perceived likelihood that they may bring one in the future, can itself constitute an act of victimisation under the Equality Act. Employers should tread carefully before weighing pending tribunal cases in their decisions to make or withdraw formal offers of employment.