Race Discrimination

Case 11: The facts

Mr Purohit, an Indian national, applied online for a trainee contract with Osborne Clarke. His application was refused on preliminary screening as applicants who would need a work permit were excluded. Osborne Clarke said the reason for their policy was that the Border and Immigration Agency (BIA) Guidance for Employers led them to believe that BIA was unlikely to grant work permits to applicants for trainee contracts. The employment tribunal upheld Purohit’s claim for indirect race discrimination. There was no evidence to suggest BIA would in fact reject such applications and Osborne Clarke did not appear to have asked them. Moreover, the Code of Practice on Racial Equality and Employment said that information about eligibility to work should preferably be dealt with in the final stages of selection to ensure that appointments are based on merit alone. Osborne Clarke appealed.

The ruling

The EAT rejected the appeal. In the absence of any evidence as to dialogue with the BIA or any attempts to apply for a permit, Osborne Clarke had not objectively justified their policy. The high standards required by their selection process could provide the BIA with the level of evidence it required as to whether there were sufficient resident workers who could perform the same job.