Mr A Farooq v Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Ltd: 2407526/2023
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2407526/2023
Between
Mr A FarooqClaimantLiverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds LtdRespondent
Before
Employment Judge SlaterMr Y Lunat (instructed by solicitor) for claimantMs A Niaz-Dickinson (instructed by counsel) for respondentDate 29 January 2025
JUDGMENT
The application to strike out the claim on the grounds that the claimant has no reasonable prospect of success in the argument that it would be just and equitable to extend time to allow his complaint of race discrimination to be considered is refused. JUDGMENT having been sent to the parties on 3 April 2024 and written reasons having been requested in accordance with Rule 62(3) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the following reasons are provided:
REASONS
[1]The claimant brings a complaint of direct race discrimination in relation to his rejection for the role of First Team Operations Officer.[2]The respondent made an application to strike out the claim on a number of grounds. The application to strike out on the grounds of the claim having no reasonable prospect of succeeding on its merits was withdrawn after an adjournment for Ms Niaz Dickinson to take instructions from her clients.[3]These reasons relate to the remaining application to strike out the claim on the grounds of the claimant having no reasonable prospect of success in arguing that his complaint was presented in time or, if not, that it would be just and equitable to consider it out of time.[4]Under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, a claim may be struck out on various grounds including that the claim has no reasonable prospect of success.[5]Section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 sets out the provisions relating to time limits for discrimination complaints brought under that Act, which include complaints of race discrimination. This provides that proceedings may not be brought after the end of the period of 3 months starting with the date of the act to which the complaint relates, or such other period as the employment tribunal thinks just and equitable. Section 123(3) provides that conduct extending over a period is to be treated as done at the end of the period. Time limits are extended to take account of time spent in the early conciliation process with ACAS, if notification to ACAS is made within the normal time limit.[6]Both parties agree that the claim was presented outside the primary time limit which, at the latest, ended on 16 April 2023, the claimant having been informed of the rejection of his application on 17 January 2023. The claimant started early conciliation on 8 June 2023, which was not during the primary time limit, so the period of early conciliation does not extend the time limit.[7]The claimant will say he was not aware of possible discrimination until 5 May 2023 when he found out that a white woman had been appointed in a temporary capacity to the role.[8]The claimant will say he did not know who had been appointed to the role on a permanent basis until 1 June 2023. The claimant then learnt that this person is a white man. The claimant took various steps to try to have his complaint dealt with by the respondent during which he was given what the respondent will now say is incorrect information about the reasons for his rejection and the respondent refused to provide diversity data.[9]The claimant will say he started to research the possibility of taking legal proceedings around 7 June and learnt of the requirement for early conciliation which he started on 8 June. Mr Lunat tells me that the claimant did not seek professional advice until July 2023.[10]Early conciliation took place 8 to 22 June and the claim was presented on 18 July 2023.[11]The respondent points to forensic prejudice because of the delay in memories fading. However, this was a relatively short delay. This is a case where the recruitment process is, on the respondent’s case, documented. I do not consider the relatively short delay is likely to result in any real prejudice to the respondent. If the claim is not allowed to proceed, the claimant will lose the opportunity to have his case tested on its merits.[12]I do not include as a relevant factor in my decision, the possible public interest in the claimant being allowed to pursue this claim (an argument raised by Mr Lunat).[13]I conclude that there is at least a reasonable prospect of the Tribunal considering it just and equitable to consider the claimant’s claim out of time. I refuse the application to strike out the claim.[15]The time limit issue will be considered, together with all other issues, at the final hearing of the claim.[1]This is a claim of direct race discrimination brought by the claimant, a British national of Pakistani origin in respect of an unsuccessful job application made on 17 November 2022. He relies upon two named comparators who are white, and he says were successful in their applications and a hypothetical comparator.[2]The claimant’s complaint was that he was not appointed to the role as he was originally sifted out and following a review of the candidates, was not added back into the pool because of his race. During the course of the hearing, the claimant confirmed that he no longer pursued a complaint of race discrimination in respect of the initial shortlisting based upon his salary expectations. The focus of his claim was therefore the rejection of his application at the second shifting process by Ms Dobson, when she revisited the applications having been unable to successfully appoint a candidate at the first attempt and did not select him for the pool which was taken forward. This resulted in him not being successful in his application.[3]The respondent defends the claims and denies the allegations of race discrimination.[4]At a case management hearing before Employment Judge Slater in March 2024, the issues to be decided were agreed and attached to her order. The parties were ordered to produce an updated agreed list and this is set out below. Time limits[5]It is agreed that the discrimination complaint was not made within the primary time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010.[6]Was the complaint made within such further period as the Tribunal thinks is just and equitable? The Tribunal will decide:[7]Why was the complaint not made to the Tribunal in time?[8]In any event, is it just and equitable in all the circumstances to extend time? Direct race discrimination (Equality Act 2010 section 13)[9]The claimant identifies himself as of Pakistani ethnic origin.[10]What are the facts in relation to the rejection of the claimant for the role of First Team Operations Officer?a. Was the claimant sifted out on the sift from 444 candidates down to 55 on 28 November 2022. This was factually agreed.b. Was he subsequently not added back in the pool when Mr Foley was? This is not factually agreed.c. Was a decision made not to appoint the claimant and was he informed he had not been successful on 17 January 2023. This was factually agreed.[11]Has the claimant proven facts from which the Tribunal could conclude that, in being rejected for that role, the claimant was treated less favourably than someone in the same material circumstances of a different race was or would have been treated? The claimant says he was treated worse than Anna Garnett and Zac Foley. In the alternative, the claimant relies on a hypothetical comparator.[12]If so, has the claimant also proven facts from which the Tribunal could conclude that the less favourable treatment was because of his Pakistani origin?[13]If so, has the respondent shown that there was no less favourable treatment because of race? Remedy for discrimination[14]Should the Tribunal make a recommendation that the respondent take steps to reduce any adverse effect on the claimant? What should it recommend?[15]What financial losses has the discrimination caused the claimant?[16]Has the claimant taken reasonable steps to replace lost earnings, for example by looking for another job?[17]If not, for what period of loss should the claimant be compensated?[18]What injury to feelings has the discrimination caused the claimant and how much compensation should be awarded for that?[19]Did the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures apply?[20]Did the respondent or the claimant unreasonably fail to comply with it?[21]If so is it just and equitable to increase or decrease any award payable to the claimant?[22]By what proportion, up to 25%?[23]Should interest be awarded? How much? Evidence and Submissions[24]The Tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and on behalf of the respondent, from Lisa Flatt, at the relevant time an Associate in the Recruitment Team, and now Manager of the Talent Acquisition Team; and from Louise Dobson at the time Senior First Team Operations Officer and now Head of First Team Operations.[25]We were referred to an agreed set of documents comprising 719 pages and a limited number of additional documents were produced and admitted during the hearing.[26]Submissions were provided by both representatives for which we were grateful.[27]Members of the press attended the hearing and witness statements and documents were made available to them.[28]A restricted reporting order was made in respect of the name of one individual whose name could be identified to be of Asian origin and had also applied for the role and was taken forward for interview at the first recruitment round. That order ended upon judgment being given. There has been no need to identify him by name in these reasons.
Findings of Fact
[29]The claimant is a British national of Pakistani heritage. His name is one which could be identified as of Asian origin.[30]In November 2022, the role of First Team Operations Officer was advertised as the person carrying out that role was to start a new role in the club. The role was advertised through a number of channels, including websites aimed at applicants of diverse backgrounds. Ms Dobson was the named Hiring Manager under the respondent’s recruitment processes. The role was stated to be to provide comprehensive, confidential, high quality and efficient operational support to the First Team.[31]The advertisement stated that the successful candidate would be: responsible for the preparation and execution of match day logistics; attend all home games; be a point of contact/liaison with the club match day hosts at home games; travel to specific locations, both UK and overseas as and when required; provide high level and accurate communications with all staff and players within the training complex; provide operational administrative support; liaison with other departments and key stakeholders with regard to larger company wide projects; act as designated Safeguarding Officer; ensure the office is sufficiently covered that along with colleagues the team provides a seven day per week operation. These were repeated in the job description.[32]Examples were given of the type of skills that were required for the role, and it included a statement that ideally the candidate would have experience of working in an elite sporting environment with knowledge of safeguarding practices for working with children or vulnerable adults.[33]The advert stated that the club aspired to be the most inclusive club in world football – providing fair and appropriate opportunities to as many people from different backgrounds as possible.[34]The claimant accepted that this was an operational role and that the matters in the job description reflected what the role would require. Unsuccessful recruitment round[35]The claimant submitted an application by completing an online application form and submitting a CV. The respondent had 487 applicants for the role. The applications went through an initial shortlisting and the number was reduced to 444 which included the claimant’s application. A further shortlisting exercise was carried out based upon experience and salary expectations which brought the number down to 55. Those excluded from the process at this stage included those of various racial backgrounds including 97 candidates who indicated their race as “white”.[36]On 17 January 2023 the claimant was advised that his application had been unsuccessful.[37]The claimant was sifted out at this stage because his salary expectation was higher than 10% more than the identified salary for the role. Although the respondent had initially intended to use a 20% figure, the number of applications resulted in it reducing it to 10%. Mr Foley was also sifted out on the same basis.[38]Ms Dobson was concerned about the quality of the candidates. Her line Manager Mr Ray Haughan spoke to a contact of his to see if he could recommend any candidates. His contact was at a company called The Player Care Group which runs player care training courses. His contact put forward four candidates. All had experience in doing similar roles, one at another Premier League club and another at the NFL. Each had qualifications in Player Care.[39]Ms Dobson agreed that they were four exceptional candidates and Mr Haughan decided that they should be added to the candidates for interview. They were not required to complete a full application form or provide their salary expectations.[40]The interviews commenced and eight or nine candidates were interviewed. That number was reduced after a first interview stage and two of the four put forward by the Player Care contact were not taken through. Of the two candidates taken forward, one was mixed White and Asian race. He had a name that would be recognisable as of Asian origin.[41]A candidate was offered the role but turned it down because the salary could not be agreed. Successful recruitment round[42]Having not been able to recruit for the role, Ms Dobson took the decision to review all 444 applicants again. She did this by printing off a spreadsheet which included the surname and details provided by each applicant in their application form. This did not include the separate CV documents nor any information as to their race or ethnicity. This spreadsheet amounted to hundreds of pages. Ms Dobson was looking for operational experience, not necessarily in football but ideally in the context of an elite sporting environment. Her preference was that a candidate would already be preforming the same or similar role perhaps with a Premier League or EFL Championship club, rugby or international sport or another elite environment. Examples of the experience she required were in set out in the details of the role in the job advertisement/description. Experience of such operations in a sporting environment was key. The job was high pressured, and she was looking for someone who would be able to “hit the ground running”.[43]The claimant accepted in evidence that such operational experience was a reasonable requirement in view of the role.[44]He also accepted that he did not have that experience and that he was relying upon his transferrable skills.[45]The claimant’s application form identified that he was currently working for a company which was responsible for all catering at the FIFA World Cup in Qatar in 2022. His role was project managing the contract with the caterer and supporting them in their planning of event operations at the FIFA Fan Festival.[46]There was also mention that while he was at university studying for his Stadium Events Management degree, he worked as a Team Liaison Officer assisting away Teams who would arrive in the UK and manage their schedule and logistics. He did not say who this work was for or with or what type of team he assisted.[47]The claimant was not taken through to the next stage of the process as his application form did not demonstrate that he had the operational experience Ms Dobson was seeking. The candidate’s CVs were not reviewed unless their application forms identified that they had the necessary operational experience.[48]There was no information available to those carrying out the shortlisting which would give any indication of the race of the applicants, other than their names.[49]Ms Dobson took 5 or 6 candidates through to interview stage having reviewed their CVs. This included Mr Zak Foley. His application form identified that he was currently in full time employment at Blackburn Rovers Football Club as Academy and Pre-Academy Football Operations Manager/Officer and under 12s Academy coach. He identified the particular operational aspects of his role which supported his application and his form demonstrated that he had relevant operational experience.[50]The claimant accepted that Mr Foley had substantial experience for the role.[51]Following an interview process Mr Foley was appointed to the role. He commenced on a salary of £35,000. Anna Garnett[52]There was a three-month period between the person leaving the role and Mr Foley joining. During that period the respondent drafted in a member of staff, Anna Garnett who was on a short-term placement to help out the team until Mr Foley could start. She had not applied for the role of First Team Operations Officer. Without the respondent’s agreement, she had posted that on Linked in that she was working in that position; however, we accept that she was not fulfilling the full requirements of the role, but rather assisting Ms Dobson in a supporting administrative role.[53]When the claimant became aware of Ms Garnett’s Linkedin post and thereafter Mr Foley’s appointment, he raised concerns with the respondent that he had more experience than those appointed and asked for their racial diversity statistics. The respondent declined to produce them. It did however correspond with the claimant and provide feedback on his application and arranged a meeting with their EDI manager which the claimant attended. Facts from which we could draw inferences[54]It was Ms Dobson who carried out the second shortlisting when the claimant was not taken through. Mr Lunat has asked us to draw inferences from the following matters to support the claimant’s complaint that Ms Dobson was unconsciously bias against the claimant because of his race.a. The recruitment process which the claimant says was not in line with the respondent’s policy. In this regard, he refers to Mr Haughan’s involvement and the introduction of 4 additional candidates in the earlier unsuccessful process, which he refers to as “an old boy’s network” and further that the respondent’s policy says that “it should try to have a diverse panel for shortlisting and interviews; and at least two people should shortlist initially separately then come together to review the scored. Further that desirable criteria should only be used when necessary and as a deciding factor.b. That the initial shortlisting was on the basis of 20% differential in salary expectations and this was reduced to 10%.c. That Ms Dobson was unwilling in cross examination to accept that the claimant’s Team Liaison Officer experience amounted to operational experience or that the claimant’s experience at the FIFA World cup was as valuable as Mr Foley’s experience at working at Blackburn Rovers.d. Ms Dobson’s readiness to accept Mr Foley’s transferrable skills but not those that the claimant had gained in management and recruitment.[55]In respect of each of these, the majority decline to draw any inferences that suggest Ms Dobson has any unconscious bias against the claimant because of his race when she reduced the applications from 444 to 8/9 for interview as part of the shortlisting exercise.[56]Dealing with the particular facts from which Mr Lunat says inferences should be drawn.a. The respondent sought recommendations for candidates from an organisation which provided qualifications in Player Care at the first unsuccessful round because they did not have the quality of candidates they had hoped for. Even though that suggestion came through Mr Haughan’s contact it is not something that we draw an inference from. It is an understandable and common practice akin to using recruitment agencies to assist in a shortlisting process. The candidates put forward were exceptional and included two people of white/Asian mixed heritage, including one person whose name was identifiable as of Asian origin. That person was taken through to the last stage of the process by Ms Dobson and Mr Haughan.b. Divergence from a policy may happen in any process for justifiable reasons. The panel composition for shortlisting was stated in the respondent’s recruitment policy to be desirable as opposed to proscriptive and Ms Dobson did involve two people at the later stages of the shortlist process. It would have been entirely impractical to involve two people in the shortlisting of 444 applications. In carrying out her shortlisting, Ms Dobson used the essential criteria being relevant operational experience as the primary criteria with elite sporting environment as a desirable. There are no inferences we can draw from this.c. The alteration from the initial 20% salary differential to 10% was understandable and reasonable in view of the very high number of applications. Sometimes changes need to be made to processes for practical reasons. We draw no inferences from this.d. Ms Dobson’s defence of her choice of Mr Foley as the successful candidate and her ongoing view that the claimant did not have the operation experience she was seeking was, in the majority’s view, the background to her responses to the questions put in cross examination. The claimant himself accepted he did not have the operational football experience. The claimant also accepted in correspondence and in his evidence before us that Zak Foley did. Ms Dobson’s defending the choices she made, faced with the challenges put by Mr Lunat does not cause us to infer that there was some sort of unconscious bias at play. Nor does the suggestion that she refused to acknowledge the claimant’s transferable skills but not Mr Foley’s. That was not what we saw before us. The claimant’s skills in managing a team of people or conducting recruitment exercises was not the experience she was seeking. Mr Foley had the operational experience within an elite sporting environment, the claimant did not.[57]The minority (Mr Husain) says that the claimant’s name being identifiable as of Asian origin, was influential and operated unconsciously on Ms Dobson’s mind when considering his application and failing to give his experience full consideration. The minority considers that an inference should be drawn that Ms Dobson had an unconscious bias against the claimant because of his race. The minority relies upon the following facts: that Mr Foley when he commenced employment started on a higher salary than that which candidates were shortlisted upon at the first recruitment round; that the candidates who were added into the first process put forward by Player Care, did not have to the complete full application forms or indicate their salary expectations; that Ms Dobson, during her answers in cross examination scrutinised the claimant’s CV and application and was reluctant to acknowledge the value of the claimant’s previous experience or whether the World Cup or Blackburn Rovers were “more elite” (not a factual finding by the majority) ; and that when Anna Garrett was told to amend her LinkedIn profile, she was not told to remove the First Team Operations Officer title, but instead told to add “Temporary”.[58]Although not mentioned by Mr Lunat in his submissions, the Tribunal notes that the respondent was given an opportunity by Employment Judge Aspinall to disclose its racial diversity statistics, even though she did not order it do so. It has not taken that opportunity. The respondent publicises its commitment to diversity but is unwilling to produce evidence to support its progress. The Tribunal (unanimously) considers that an inference can be drawn from this that the statistics are not good. That decision was not made by Ms Dobson, but at a higher level within the respondent and she had no influence upon that decision.
The Law
[59]Section 39 of the Equality Act 2010 states so far as material as follows: “(1) An employer(a) (A) must not discriminate against a person (B)- (a) in the arrangements A makes for deciding to whom to offer employment;(b) as to the terms on which A offers B employment;(c) by not offering B employment.”[60]Section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 states as follows: “A person(a) (A) discriminates against another(b) (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.”[61]The concept of treatment being less favourable inherently suggests some form of comparison and in such cases section 23(1) Equality Act 2010 applies: “On a comparison of cases for the purposes of section 13, 14 or 19 there must be no material difference between the circumstances relating to each case.”[62]The effect of section 23 is to ensure that any comparison made must be between situations which are genuinely comparable. The case law, however, makes it clear that it is not necessary for a claimant to have an actual comparator to succeed. The comparison can be with a hypothetical person in the same material circumstances without the protected characteristic.[63]Section 136 Equality Act 2010 so far as material provides as follows: “(2) If there are facts from which the Court could decide in the absence of any other explanation that a person (A) contravened the provision concerned, the Court must hold that the contravention occurred. (3) But subsection (2) does not apply if A shows that A did not contravene the provision.”[64]Consequently, it is for a claimant to establish facts from which the Tribunal can reasonably conclude that there has been a contravention of the Act. If the claimant establishes those facts, the burden shifts to the respondent to show that there has been no contravention.[65]In Hewage v Grampian Health Board [2012] IRLR 870 the Supreme Court approved guidance previously given by the Court of Appeal on how the burden of proof provision should apply. That guidance appears in Igen Limited v Wong [2005] ICR 931 and was supplemented in Madarassy v Nomura International PLC [2007] ICR 867. Although the concept of the shifting burden of proof involves a two-stage process, that analysis should only be conducted once the Tribunal has heard all the evidence, including any explanation offered by the employer for the treatment in question. However, if in practice the Tribunal is able to make a firm finding as to the reason why a decision or action was taken, the burden of proof provision is unlikely to be material. Decision and Conclusion[66]The list of issues sets out the matters we must decide.[67]The allegation of direct race discrimination relates to the claimant not being appointed to the role of First Team Operations Officer. However, the claimant relies upon particular decisions on the part of the respondent which brought about this outcome. These are:a. Was the claimant sifted out on the sift from 444 candidates down to 55 on 28 November 2022. This was factually agreed. This was the first unsuccessful recruitment round, and the respondent says that the reason was the claimant’s salary expectations. Mr Lunat has confirmed during this hearing that the claimant no longer has any complaint about the initial sifting exercise based upon salary. We are grateful for that concession.b. Was he subsequently not added back in the pool when Zac Foley was? This is not factually agreed by the respondent, but it is accepted that upon there being no appointment to the role in the first round, Ms Dobson reviewed all 444 applications again. At that stage both the claimant and Mr Foley’s applications were reviewed. Mr Foley’s application was permitted to proceed but the claimants was not. This is the focus of the claimant’s case.c. Was a decision made not to appoint the claimant and was he informed he had not been successful on 17 January 2023. This was factually agreed. Having been sifted out at the first round because of his salary expectations and again in the second round, the claimant application did not proceed, and he was not appointed to the role.[68]The claimant relies upon Mr Foley and Ms Garnett as comparators, and in the alternative a hypothetical comparator. In respect of Ms Garnett, we find that she cannot be an appropriate comparator as she did not apply for the role of First Team Operations Officer and is not in the same material circumstances as the claimant. Mr Foley is an appropriate comparator.[69]Turning then to the issue of why the claimant’s application was not taken forward when Ms Dobson reviewed all 444 applications again. The claimant says that Ms Dobson had an unconscious bias when she saw his name and as such did not properly consider his application.[70]This is a direct discrimination claim where the initial burden is on the claimant to show facts from which we could conclude that there has been unlawful discrimination. By “could conclude”, this is whether a reasonable Tribunal could conclude from the evidence before it. The claimant’s case primarily relies upon inferences which he asks us to draw from facts which we have outlined.[71]At this stage we can consider facts put forward by the claimant and the respondent.[72]The majority view is that the evidence is clear that at the stage that Ms Dobson carried out the shortlisting again and sought to reduce 444 applications to a manageable number to take forward, the claimant has not shown any facts or inferences from which we could conclude that Ms Dobson was motivated consciously or unconsciously by the claimant’s race when not selecting him to proceed to the next stage of the process. Although the respondent has not disclosed its race diversity statistics that was not Ms Dobson’s decision and find that those statistics, even if not good, had no impact upon Ms Dobson’s motivations.[73]The only information which Ms Dobson had about the claimant’s race was from his name. There needs to be something more than just a difference in treatment between the claimant and Mr Foley, or a hypothetical comparator in the same material circumstances as the claimant. The claimant has not shown us anything from which we could draw that conclusion. We note also that at a sifting stage in the first process, both Mr Foley and the claimant were sifted out.[74]The role was one which required operational experience. Ms Dobson was looking for it in a sporting context. That was the primary criteria used by Ms Dobson. The ideal candidate would also have experience in an elite sporting environment. The claimant accepted that he did not have that operational experience. He was relying upon his transferable skills. The claimant’s application form (which was all that was viewed by Ms Dobson) referred to his work at the FIFA World Cup, however the claimant accepted it was not the operational experience required for the First Team role, it was project managing a catering contract albeit at an elite sporting event. The claimant also included information in his application about his experience in working as a Team Liaison Officer in respect of away teams arriving in the UK, while studying for his degree. Unfortunately, he did not in his application form say who he had carried this work out for or what type of team and at what level. His form gave the impression, as was correct that it was a part time or an intermittent role. There was nothing in that form which would have alerted Ms Dobson to his previous work with sporting organisations, including Tottenham Hotspur, at the Euros or the FA. That information was contained in his CV which was not reviewed by Ms Dobson at the shortlisting stage in view of the very high number of applicants. In any event, as has been explored during this hearing, the claimant’s experience with those organisations, although impressive was still not the operational experience Ms Dobson was seeking for the respondent’s First Team Operations Officer.[75]The majority decision is that the claimant has not shown facts from which we could conclude that Ms Dobson’s decision not to take the claimant’s application forward at the second sift was motivated by race. He has not discharged the burden necessary for the respondent to have to show a non-discriminatory reason.[76]Had he succeeded in this, we would in any event have found that the respondent had shown that there was a non-discriminatory reason being that the claimant’s application form, which was all that Ms Dobson assessed, did not show the operational experience she was seeking. That was the reason his application was rejected. Mr Foley’s application form however contained a wealth of operational football experience. That is why he was selected to progress to the next stage. Race played no part in her decisions.[77]We turn to the minority view. That relies upon the inferences which the minority consider shows that Ms Dobson was unconsciously influenced by racial bias when she saw the claimant had a name which indicated an Asian heritage, such that she did not give the claimant’s application form proper consideration. The minority says that the reference to the Team Liaison Officer experience in his application form was sufficient for Ms Dobson to have taken his application forward. It referred to teams travelling from abroad which the minority says should have indicated a higher level of sporting excellence, of the kind sought by Ms Dobson. The minority says race played a part in that decision, albeit unconsciously. Time Limits[78]Although not necessary in view of our findings, the Tribunal would have found that it was just and equitable to extend time if the claim had been successful. Both parties agreed that the claim was presented outside the primary time limit, which at the latest ended on 16 April 2023, the claimant having been informed of the rejection of his application on 17 January 2023. The claimant started early conciliation on 8 June 2023 which ended on 22 June 2023 and the claim was presented on 18 July 2023. The claimant was not aware of possible discrimination until 5 May 2023 when he saw the LinkedIn profile of Anna Garnett. He did not become aware of Mr Foley’s appointment until 1 June 2023. He made efforts to raise and resolve his concerns with the respondent and there was a failure by it to provide diversity data. The claimant took legal advice in July 2023. We consider that there was no real prejudice to the respondent, who were aware of the substance of the complaints from an early stage. We consider that it would have been just and equitable to extend time.[79]The claim fails and is dismissed.