A prospective HR manager has lost his race and sex discrimination case after he was told at his job interview the company wanted to hire ‘fewer white men’.
High-flying Chris Palmer was turned down from the £80,000 post at a financial services company after bosses highlighted concerns about his ‘arrogance’ and instead opted to hire a woman.
At an employment tribunal, Mr Palmer said his failure to get the job was based on his ethnicity and gender following the remark from managing director, Michael Jones, with the spurned jobseeker accusing the finance firm of ‘going through the motions’.
But, the panel dismissed his claims – which the hearing heard had been branded ‘absurd’ – ruling it was not ‘indicative of an intention to discriminate’ when an employer mentioned its aim to improve diversity in an underrepresented workforce.
Slamming down his claims, an employment judge said that although a firm may aspire to be ‘less dominated by white men’, it does not mean there’s an ‘intention to achieve that objective by discriminating in recruitment against white men and in favour of women or minority ethnic candidates’.
Comment now
Do YOU work for the company? Please email [email protected]
Chris Palmer was turned down from the £80,000 post at a financial services company after bosses highlighted concerns about his ‘arrogance’ and instead opted to hire a woman
Mr Palmer was invited to a pre-screening interview in July 2021 at AIMS Markets, where he was asked to talk through his CV and experience.
The conversation was conducted on the phone while the candidate was on holiday, and several of his friends listened to the call, a hearing in central London was told.
‘Mr Jones told him that they had an objective of building and creating diversity,’ the tribunal heard. ‘He mentioned the ethnicity and sex of various existing employees.
‘According to [Mr Palmer] and his friends, Mr Jones referred to the company’s wish, desire or intention to hire “fewer white men”.’
Led by Mr Jones, his prospective employers thought Mr Palmer was a ‘serious candidate’ who should progress to the first interview, despite having a ‘couple of reservations’ about him.
The first interview was in August 2021, after which the three interviewers expressed their ‘doubts’. It was heard they felt he ‘talked a lot’, and were left wondering if he would be a ‘good listener’. They were also ‘concerned’ about his seniority and wage expectations, with court documents saying he had suggested a £100,000 salary.
In the internal hiring spreadsheet, one said there was an ‘arrogance we need to tease out’.
The tribunal heard there were two other candidates at this stage – who were both women – who were then also rejected.
A couple of weeks later, Mr Jones told Mr Palmer to tell him they ‘did not wish to proceed any further with him’.
Mr Palmer said his failure to get the job was based on his ethnicity and gender following the remark from managing director, Michael Jones (pictured)
The panel heard he said they had decided after ‘some deliberation’ to change the remit for the role and downgrade the level of seniority they were aiming for, as they were not ready for someone of his ‘calibre’ at that time.
In November 2021, Mr Palmer wrote to Mr Jones alleging sex discrimination and said his interviewers had been ‘going through the motions’.
Replying, Andrew Clover, CEO, said the ‘fewer white men’ comment had been ‘misconstrued’.
‘[Mr Jones] was referring to us being a diverse employer and pointing out that we don’t just hire one type of person, for example just white men, not to say we don’t want to hire white men,’ he wrote.
He insisted the gender or ethnicity of a candidate would ‘never’ be a factor in their decision making.
Mr Clover also pointed out that had they intended not to employ him, Mr Palmer wouldn’t have been interviewed twice.
The panel heard a woman had taken the job after being offered the role in September 2021. After starting legal action, Mr Palmer presented the company’s ‘new hires’ stats – showing they’d hired 22 men and 10 women since launching.
The panel heard he suggested since his job was advertised, they had started a process of hiring ‘fewer men’, which was then ‘reversed’ after becoming aware of his discrimination claim.
However, Mr Clover said this was ‘absurd’, claiming he did not have ‘time to ‘orchestrate’ hiring statistics.
Regarding the ‘fewer white men’ comment – which Mr Jones denied making – Employment Judge Tamara Lewis said: ‘Clearly something was said about this.
‘There was a general discussion about diversity in recruitment, given that the position was Head of HR.
‘We find that Mr Jones indicated the company hoped to achieve a diverse workforce that did not exclusively comprise, for example, white men.
‘Having listened to Mr Jones as a witness, we suspect he did not express this very well.’
The panel found Mr Jones said something to the effect that the company ‘hoped to achieve a position where there were fewer white men as a proportion of the workforce’.
Throwing out his claim of sex discrimination, she continued: ‘We do not find it concerning or odd that an employer should discuss with a candidate for a post as head of HR the issue of diversity in its workforce.
The employment hearing took place at the London Central tribunal centre
‘Nor do we find it in itself indicative of an intention to discriminate that an employer should aspire to increase diversity in its workforce where there is underrepresentation.
‘An aim to have an organisation less dominated by white men in areas where traditionally that is the dominant profile, does not mean that there is an intention to achieve that objective by discriminating in recruitment against white men and in favour of women or minority ethnic candidates.
‘We would expect candidates for a Head of HR post to understand these principles and distinctions.’
Reacting to the tribunal judgement, Mr Palmer today said: ‘The crux of the tribunal’s judgment is that intending to hire fewer white men doesn’t normally mean using discrimination to achieve that aim; instead, it means something more nebulous, such as removing barriers to recruiting a more diverse workforce.
‘But my experience in HR is that it inevitably does lead to discrimination, because that is by far the easiest way to get to the desired outcome. The fact that it’s illegal isn’t normally much of a deterrent, because proving discrimination in recruitment is extremely difficult – as I have found.
‘In a podcast at the time, [AIM’s] Director of Compliance stated: “We do screening calls, and it was always the same two individuals on screening calls: two white men. And that isn’t the culture we have. It isn’t the culture we want portrayed”.
‘The tribunal generously concluded that this podcast did not contain ‘anything indicative of an intention to discriminate against white men.’ Readers may draw their own conclusions.’