Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

In the case of Mr N Clements v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust – ET2303535/2018 the Employment Tribunal held that focussing on whether an applicant (an older white male) was the “best fit” for an organisation resulted in the applicant being subjected to age discrimination and sex discrimination.

The facts in Mr N Clements v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust

Mr N Clement’s (the “Claimant) applied for a role within the Health Innovation Network (HIN) forming part of Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust (the “Respondent”) as a Band 7 Project Manager (“PM”).  The Claimant suffered from a condition called genetic haemochromatosis which causes iron overloading and is known to cause cancer, heart problems, including cardiomyopathy, joint pain and other chronic symptoms.

On 18 July 2018 the Claimant was shortlisted and invited for interview under the Respondent’s two ticks policy. Four other candidates were also invited for interview including the comparator KM, a female in her mid-twenties.  All five applicants were interviewed on the same day by a panel compiled by the Respondent.

The panel concluded that the best performing of the five candidates were the Claimant and KM. Therefore the final choice was between the Claimant and KM. The Claimant had the highest total score of 81.5 as compared with KM on 80.  Despite the Claimant having the highest score out of the two candidates, the interview panel decided to go through a process of ‘moderation’ to decide who would be the ‘best fit’ for the post within the organisation without reviewing the scores as such. At the end of this process the Claimant still had the highest score. The panel then decided to go through a process of discussion with members of the relevant team known as a ‘sense check’ to see which of the two candidates “were a better fit” within the team.  A number of comments were made by team members which questioned whether the Claimant was too experienced, too senior, how younger staff would be able to manage him as an older person, the fact he was “very different to Dee” (the previous post holder, a women in her twenties) and “nothing like Dee”.

On 19 July 2018 the Claimant was informed he had not been successful in being selected for the post.  He was told that a main factor in the decision was that member of staff that would be responsible for managing him would be  “uncomfortable asking you to do things given you have an 11-year-old daughter”. The Claimant said he had also been told he “had so much more to give compared to other applicants”. The Claimant said that he expressed his disappointment to the news to which CL responded that it was an objective of the accelerator team “to encourage team members to develop their careers” and that given the Claimant’s maturity, it was “better to employ someone at an early stage of their career as they would then progress to develop their career over a longer period elsewhere in the NHS”. The Claimant was also told that other members of the team had been asked to assess each of the candidates.  The Claimant also applied for a separate position later on 19 July 2018, which was a more senior Band 8 project manager position. He  disclosed his disability on his application form and selected the option on the form to be shortlisted for interview, if he met the person specification which was in line with the Respondent’s two tick’s policy.  Unfortunately, the Respondent due to an administrative error failed to mark his application form correctly using the two tick’s policy resulting in his application form not being processed, noting his application as a disabled candidate. On 10 August 2018 he was informed that he was not being called for interview and that his application had been unsuccessful.

On 30 July 2018 the Claimant sent an email to the Respondent’s HR department complaining about what he felt was a discriminatory selection process, his complaint was not upheld.

The Claimant lodged his claim at the Employment Tribunal on 28 September 2018. His claims included claims for: 

  1. Direct age discrimination (S.13 Equality Act 2010))
  2. Direct sex discrimination (s.13 Equality Act 2010))
  3. Failure to make reasonable adjustments (s.21 Equality Act 2010))

The decision of the Employment Tribunal

The Employment Tribunal upheld the Claimant’s claims for direct age discrimination and direct sex discrimination, but rejected the claim for disability discrimination.

Direct age discrimination 

The Employment Tribunal found the Claimant had been subject to direct discrimination which occurred during the interview process where they felt both conscious and unconscious bias had been at play. The Respondent by focusing on finding someone who was the “best fit” were indulging in discriminatory language, seeking to finding someone who was more like them.

The Employment Tribunal noted the team group was predominantly female with an average age of 30-32.  Age discrimination was the reason he was not selected for the Band 7 PM role and thus his claim succeeded.

Sex discrimination

The Employment Tribunal also found in favour of the Claimant for sex discrimination considering again:

  • the use of language like “best fit” and the gender make-up of the grouping of people who contributed to the decision;
  • the unconventional process used by the Respondent and the fact that the Claimant achieved the highest score; and
  • the radical pro feminist views of a team member in influencing the selection decision.   

Disability discrimination

The Employment Tribunal did not uphold this claim. There was no PCP the Employment Tribunal could identify that placed the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled persons. They decided that it was factually incorrect the Respondent did not apply their two tick’s policy for the Claimant as a disabled person, rather it was not applied  due to an administrative error.

Our lawyers’ views on the case

Stephen Norton, a lawyer in the employment team at Redmans, commented as follows: “Another useful case where stereotypical assumptions are made about a person based on perceptions of age in terms of value or usefulness within an organisation and the danger of comments where both conscious and unbiased bias come into play. In this case it is interesting that both claims of age and sex discrimination were upheld based on the facts.”

The decision of the Employment Tribunal in Mr N Clements v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust – ET2303535/2018 can be found here.


Redmans Employment Team deal with employment matters for both employers and employees, including drafting employment contracts and policies, advising employers and employees on compromise agreements, handling day-to-day HR issues, advising on restructures, and handling Employment Tribunal cases for both employers and employees Call 020 3397 3603 to speak to one of the members of our employment team or email us on enquiries@redmans.co.uk. Redmans have offices in Richmond, Chiswick, Hammersmith, Fulham, Kingston, Wimbledon, Ealing, Kings Cross and Marylebone (meetings strictly by appointment only).

Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

Share →

Our awards

Request a callback

    Your first name (required)

    Your last name (required)

    Your email (required)

    Your telephone number (required)

    Brief details of your enquiry


    4.80 Average

    320 Reviews


    Efficient and quick service!

    Posted 3 days ago

    Karen B

    Quick response very helpful Issue raised dealt with very quickly

    Posted 6 days ago

    Carmen T

    Redmans give Great service and advice on reading contracts. They can explain all the solicitors jargon into words that you can understand. I received excellent service an I will use them again and again.

    Posted 1 week ago


    Very grateful for Mel’s efforts in handling my case from start to finish which I would have found very stressful without it. She was very professional, friendly and we had a positive outcome. Highly recommend.

    Posted 1 month ago

    Nalin W

    Mel Chin was my Legal Executive when I engaged the services of Redmans Solicitors to help with a redundancy matter. She was incredibly approachable and professional from start to finish. Specially I have to mention regarding prompt reply to all my email queries, It was super quick. I would thoroughly recommend Mel Chin. Many Thanks

    Posted 1 month ago


    I'd highly recommend Redmans Solicitors. Mel was very helpful and assisted me throughout my case.

    Posted 1 month ago


    Sacha was very thorough and very helpful, with great advice on when to act and when to wait on my case.

    Posted 1 month ago


    I have been very pleased with the support I got from Redmans Solicitors on my case with my employer. Caroline has always helped me to put things in perspective and showed me different scenarios ultimately to help me taking the right decision. She was very professional and always available when I needed, and at the same time also emphatic which I found also really important to establish a strong relationship. Will definitely recommend!

    Posted 1 month ago


    Prompt and efficient response to my enquiries. Excellent negotiating skills with my employer which considerably improved the terms of my settlement agreement.

    Posted 1 month ago


    Very quick and professional service , Rana was very helpful

    Posted 2 months ago

    James G

    Very professional, knowledgeable and kept me informed at every stage of my case. I would highly recommend Redmans.

    Posted 2 months ago

    Pravina P

    Chris was really good and help solve my issues with current company. I would recommend him to anyone.

    Posted 2 months ago

    Paul L

    Sacha was extremely helpful in my matter. I would not hesitate you use Sacha or Redmonds again. Everyone was very helpful.

    Posted 2 months ago

    Monique N

    I had Mel Chin helping me with a settlement and she was very professional and reliable throughout my case. Mel provided me with a good understanding of what was happening and gave suggestions on routes I could take. My case was resolved and closed promptly although the opposing side were very difficult to deal with. A very big thank you to Mel and Chris.

    Posted 2 months ago

    Jackie C

    My first ever experience needing the services of a solicitor; cannot speak highly enough of Mel and Chris’s personable, reassuring and straight to the point advice in dealing with my settlement agreement. They put me at ease during an extremely stressful time. I am equally as happy with the outcome, as l am their professional services.

    Posted 2 months ago


    Really happy with the service. All very efficient. Mel rattled through things very fast, however was great whenever I needed to stop and ask a question! Would definitely return to Redmans if I ever needed Legal advice.

    Posted 2 months ago

    Peter F

    Very helpful and clear advice, would highly recommend.

    Posted 2 months ago

    William A

    Second time I have had to use Redmans. They did not disappoint. They are fast , efficient and friendly. I have already recommended them to friends and colleagues. I hope I dont have to use them again but if I have to , they are the solicitors for me.

    Posted 2 months ago

    Fleeta C

    Great service with tantastic communications. The solicitor responsible is extremely knowledgeable and was responsible for bringing a timely and desired solution.

    Posted 2 months ago

    Veronica M

    Extremely helpful, starting from a request for advice at very short notice, to dedicating time for me to understand and review all documents thoroughly.

    Posted 2 months ago

    Sophie R

    Very efficient and professional service. Chris was very empathetic, knowledgeable and personable. Highly recommended.

    Posted 2 months ago