Case Number: 2308344/2020
1 of 22
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr I Sodola
Respondent: London Ambulance Service NHS Trust
Heard at: London South Employment Tribunal (hybrid) on 12 December 2022
By CVP on 13,14 (am),15 December (pm)
14 December (pm) and 15 December 2022 (in chambers)
Before: Employment Judge Braganza KC
Members : Mr J Havard
Mr C Wilby
Appearances
For the claimant: Mr C Ezike, Solicitor
For the respondent: Ms J Twomey, Counsel
JUDGMENT
The Judgment of the Tribunal is that:-
1. The complaint that the Claimant was not promoted on grounds of his race to the
Team Manager post is dismissed.
2. The complaint that the Respondent delayed providing him with written feedback
because of his race is well-founded and succeeds.
3. The issue of remedy is adjourned to 27 February 2023.
Case Number: 2308344/2020
2 of 22
REASONS
Introduction
1. This is the unanimous decision of the Tribunal. The Tribunal gave its decision
and reasons at the end of the hearing, following which the Respondent asked
for written reasons.
2. The Claimant is employed by the Respondent as a Health Advisor/ Pathway
trainer. He started on 21 January 2013 and his employment continues. The
Claimant describes himself as a black African man. By a claim form presented
on 16 December 2020 he brought a claim for race discrimination and other
payments.
Issues
3. By the time of the hearing the Claimant’s claims had been significantly
narrowed. His claim of race discrimination was based on the Respondent not
appointing him to a Team Manager post after his interview on 26 May 2020 and
delaying providing him with written feedback on his performance at interview not
until 23 August 2020.
4. We were provided with an agreed list of issues [397 of the hearing bundle]. The
parties agreed that the time point fell away.
Unlawful deduction claim
5. At the outset of the hearing, the Claimant also relied on a claim for unlawful
deduction of wages, arising from 30 minute unpaid breaks for the period
between 29 March 2018 and 25 May 2020 . At the previous Preliminary Hearing
on 8 June 2022 before EJ Cheetham KC, the Claimant had been allowed to
proceed with this claim only on the basis that he provide further particulars as
his claim appeared to be ongoing and continuing beyond 25 May 2020. The
particulars subsequently provided by the Claimant specified that the last
unlawful deduction of wages he relied on was, in fact, on 25 May 2020. There
were three relevant deductions, amounting to £24.30 in total [156]. The
Claimant applied for time to be extended as he was not aware that the
deductions were not ongoing.
6. Having heard the parties’ submissions, the Tribunal gave its decision that this
claim would not be allowed to proceed. It was out of time, and it was clear from
the previous Preliminary Hearing and the judgment sent on 18 July 2022 that in
the absence of any further evidence, the Tribunal was not satisfied that it was
not reasonably practicable for the Claimant to have brought this claim in time.
Race discrimination
7. That left two claims of direct race discrimination for the Tribunal to decide:
Case Number: 2308344/2020
3 of 22
a. Was the Claimant’s unsuccessful application for the Team Manager post
following his interview on 26 May 2020 less favourable treatment because
of his race?
b. Was the Respondent’s failure to provide the Claimant with written
feedback in his interview not until 23 August 2020 less favourable
treatment because of his race?
8. The Claimant relied on his white colleagues who were successful in the
appointment to the Team Manager post: They were LP, AMA, HA and CL
1
.
Hearing
9. On Friday, 9 December 2022, the Respondent applied to the Tribunal for the
hearing on 12 December 2022, which had been listed as a face to face hearing,
to be converted to a remote hearing by CVP, due to the planned rail strikes and
strikes by their own staff. The Tribunal directed the parties to attend in person
on Monday, 12 December, and that going forward the form of the hearing would
be discussed. On Day 1, Ms Twomey, Counsel for the Respondent, attended
via CVP due to being snowed in and difficulties getting the tube. Due to the train
strikes and with the parties’ agreement, the Tribunal proceeded with the hearing
by CVP on Days 2, 3 and 4. The Tribunal spent part of Day 3 and 4 deliberating,
and gave its decision and reasons at the end of Day 4.
Documents
10. The Tribunal was provided with a bundle of 401 pages and witness statements
from the Claimant and, on behalf of the Respondent, from Mrs Robinson.
References in square brackets in the judgment are to the PDF pages within that
bundle. On Day 3 of the hearing we were provided with a further 16 pages of
evidence, which we refer to below. We were not provided with any written
submissions, skeleton arguments or authorities from either party.
Late evidence
11. The evidence was concluded at the end of Day 2 on 13 December 2022. After
the conclusion, the Claimant sent the Tribunal ten further documents and certain
email correspondence, some of which he had raised at the outset of the hearing
and during his evidence. The hearing was resumed for that reason on the
morning of 14 December 2022, Day 3, for the parties to address the Tribunal on
the documents. At that stage the Claimant relied on only four attachments with
the first e-mail and two documents in respect to the second. The Claimant
submitted that these were relevant to his assertions as to how his right to work
had been handled by the Respondent. Mr Ezike, on behalf of the Claimant, also
relied on a word version, as opposed to the PDF version included in the bundle,
of the Team Manager interview scoring sheet, which was completed by the
1
We have anonymised the names of all the candidates as they were not part of the decision making
process and may not know about the proceedings.
Case Number: 2308344/2020
4 of 22
Respondent marking the Claimant’s performance at interview. The Tribunal was
invited to carry out its own investigations and look into the file properties of the
word document and treat this as evidence of when the document was created.
The Claimant did not produce evidence as to the properties of the document
and in the absence of such evidence, it is not for the Tribunal to carry out such
investigations.
12. Ms Twomey objected to the admission of the documents based on their late
production and that the right to work documents were not relevant to the issues.
We considered the nature of the documents and the timing of their production.
We decided to admit the documents and attach such weight as we saw fit.
13. The word document of the Team Manager interview score sheet was the same
as that contained in the bundle, albeit that was in PDF form. There was no
prejudice to the Respondent in admitting this document as the Tribunal had no
evidence as to its properties. The email chain was relevant as it referred to
there being no recording of the Team Manager interview with the Claimant. Mr
Ezike had referred to an email from Chris Randall during the hearing about the
existence of a recording. Mrs Robinson gave evidence as to her understanding
that there was no longer a recording. The Respondent submitted that its
witness, Mrs Robinson, was not asked about the late documents but we
considered that the interview score sheet as a word document was completed
by Ms Wallen, who had not attended as a witness, and not Mrs Robinson. In
any event, the Tribunal had already been provided with the PDF version of this.
14. As to the right to work documents, at the outset of the hearing on the morning
of 12 December, Mr Ezike had raised that there were documents on this that he
had asked the Respondent to add to the bundle and then agreed to provide
these. It appears that there was some delay in the emails being forwarded on
to the Tribunal. In any event, the Respondent’s only witness, Mrs Robinson,
had not dealt with the right to work issue and so could not give evidence on this.
Witnesses
15. We heard evidence from the Claimant and from Mrs Robinson, Team Manager,
on behalf of the Respondent.
Submissions
16. Both parties made oral submissions. These have been taken into account.
Background and Findings of fact
17. The Claimant has been employed by the Respondent since 2013. It was
accepted that prior to the relevant Team Manager recruitment exercise in April/
May 2020 that we are concerned with, the Claimant had applied about 5 times
previously for the same role. On the evidence before us, his application in April
2020 was the fourth time he had applied, and been rejected.
Case Number: 2308344/2020
5 of 22
Previous applications
18. The Claimant’s first application for the role of Team Manager was in mid-2015.
The Claimant considered himself to be, in his words, “highly qualified” for the
role, having 2 Masters Degrees, whereas the role only required an
Undergraduate Degree or equivalent experience. The Claimant explained that
he was told he been unsuccessful and given generic feedback stating that he
was a very strong candidate but others were more qualified and suitable for the
role. The Claimant says that he later found out that those who had obtained the
role were less qualified than him and had less experience. The successful
candidates were all white British.
19. In late 2015 and 2016 the Claimant applied for the same role and received
similar feedback, which he claims did not match his performance during the
interview process. That was not challenged. He was assigned the role of a
Pathway Trainer in May 2019. As a Pathway Trainer, he was required to deliver
training to new employees.
Right to work
20. In or around September 2019, the Claimant was asked for his original
documentation evidencing his current right to work in the UK, in accordance with
Home Office guidance. Because the Claimant did not provide this, he was
suspended from 9 September 2019 pending an investigation into his right to
work status. By letter of 9 October his suspension was lifted, as he had provided
the relevant documentation. He returned to work on 12 October 2019 and was
paid for the period of suspension. It is important to highlight that the treatment
of him around the documentation in respect of his right to work, which dated
back to 2019, was not a claim in this case. In terms of background, it is not in
dispute that he was asked for this documentation, suspended on investigation
of its production and then returned to work. Mr Ezike relied on this sequence of
events as evidence of what he described as structural or systemic
discrimination. In submissions, Mr Ezike also set out that the less favourable
treatment complained of in respect of the Team Manager role was not an
isolated incident. He said there were a myriad of issues leading to the Team
Manager promotion and why there was institutional racism against the Claimant.
He explained that the failure to appoint the Claimant was the “straw that broke
the camel’s back”. If the Team Manager interview had been a complaint on its
own, Mr Ezike submitted there may not have been a claim, but in the context of
the background, the refusal to promote the Claimant was because of his race.
21. On 29 March 2020, during the Covid-19 pandemic, the Respondent requested
that the Claimant work as a trainer in ad hoc training of Covid-19 call handlers.
He was supported by a Team Manager at the Respondent’s headquarters at
the Waterloo office from 29 March 2020 to 14 June 2020. We accept that he
was training about 140 Covid-19 call handlers at that time. We were taken to a
number of emails [281-284], which showed the Claimant contacting the relevant
Team Manager on the performance and attendance of certain of the call
handlers that he was training.
Case Number: 2308344/2020
6 of 22
Team Manager application in April 2020
22. On 30 April 2020 the Claimant applied again for the post of Team Manager.
Within his Expression of Interest [266] he detailed that he had worked as the
initial point of contact for the NHS111 Service as a Health Advisor over the last
8 years, his personal development, that he had an in-depth understanding of
the NHS111 now Integrated Urgent Care (IUC) services and, the pathways
triage tool and the Directory of Services (DOS). He referred to his experience
as a Pathways Trainer, his Master’s degree in management, his experience
managing calls, and people engagement and management skills. He detailed
his work as a pathways trainer in the IUC, Peer Educator Trainer with UNICEF
in the past and Clinical Skill Peer Tutor (London South Bank University). He
referred to the response to the Covid-19 pandemic, training over 120 Covid call
handlers. Post training, he said he still supported the Covid-19 hub as a Health
Advisor and was more like an acting Team Manager, through daily call audits
and providing support to the clinical and service leads. He referred to working
with senior management on strategies to improve staff performance.
23. The Job Description [267] we were told was an old version. It referred to NHS
Direct, which was disbanded in 2013. It also referred to the location at
Beckenham, Mrs Robinson said that this should have read Croydon. The
Person Specification [272] was divided into 4 sections: values and behaviours;
education; knowledge and experience; and skills and capabilities. Mrs Robinson
confirmed that this criteria was to be met either by the application form, signified
on the Person Specification by an (“A”), or in the Claimant’s case by his
Expression of Interest; by the answers at interview (“I”) or a combination of both.
Recruitment Policy
24. The Respondent’s Recruitment and Selection Policy and Procedure [173] set
out at paragraph 8.1 that “All Recruitment Panels must have at least two
members. One of the members will act as the Chair and will be responsible for
ensuring that the Recruitment and Selection Policy and Procedure have been
complied with, including being aware of any strategic or other recruitment
objectives or targets. Preferably all members of the Recruitment Panel will have
received appropriate training in recruitment and selection, including relevant
elements of equality, diversity and employment legislation; in circumstances
where this is not possible the Chair must have received this training. It is not a
requirement that HR should be represented on all Recruitment Panels.”
25. Mrs Robinson told the Tribunal that she had had training on recruitment when
she started her job. She started in 2005 and transferred to the London
Ambulance Service in 2013, when she also became a Team Manager, which is
when she said she received training. She assumed Ms Wallen had undertaken
the same training some 5 years earlier, when Ms Wallen started.
26. Paragraph 8.2 of the Policy required that “recruitment panels should, as far as
is reasonable, be mixed in regards to gender, ethnicity etc”. This recruitment
panel was made up of two women: Mrs Robinson, who is white, and Ms Wallen,
who is black.
Case Number: 2308344/2020
7 of 22
27. As to the interviews and other assessments, paragraph 17.1 set out that
“Recruitment Panels will interview candidates in order to ask questions
designed to test their knowledge, skills, attitudes and experience, and to clarify
or assess evidence presented on their application form.”
28. Paragraph 17.2 required that “Interviews will usually be conducted by the
Recruitment Panel convened to assess the other stages of selection and will
always be more than one person. The areas for questioning must be established
prior to the interview and must be based on the person specification. Each
candidate must be interviewed using the same set of base questions. Where
supplementary questions are asked they must be recorded during the interview
to ensure fairness throughout the process.” Paragraph 17.3 set out that
“Reasons for selection and rejection will be recorded and made available to
candidates if requested”.
29. Paragraph 17.4 set out that “All candidates should be advised of the outcome
of their interview in writing, regardless of whether they are also advised verbally
by the interviewers.” 17.5 proved “If a candidate is deemed suitable for
appointment but a stronger candidate is appointed to the vacancy, then he or
she can be placed on a reserve list in case a similar vacancy becomes available.
The list will be kept for 12 months as will other documentation relating to
unsuccessful candidates.”
30. Paragraph 17.6 set out that “All interview notes together with all other
recruitment documentation must be returned to the Recruitment Department
(either in hard copy or scanned and emailed) and will be maintained in line with
TP/030 Records Management Retention and Disposal Procedure.”
31. On feedback 35.1 set out “All internal staff who have undergone a recruitment
exercise may request feedback. The purpose of feedback is to advise the
candidate, in broad terms, on the relative strengths and weaknesses of their
application.” Paragraph 36.1 provided “Candidates requesting a recruitment
decision be reviewed should do so by writing to the Recruitment Manager within
28 days, setting out the reasons why they believe that they have been treated
unfairly.”
32. The Claimant in his evidence said that he did not ask for a review of the
recruitment decision as he was not provided with written feedback until 23
August 2020.
33. Paragraph 36.3 set out that “For internal candidates - if, further to employees
receiving feedback either by the panel or recruitment manager and they remain
dissatisfied by the response, then they may request a further review by the next
level of management. No further review/appeal is allowed under this or any
other LAS policy.”
Shortlisting
34. The Claimant was shortlisted for interview along with six colleagues. We accept
the evidence from Mrs Robinson that all those who were shortlisted met the
application criteria for the role of Team Manager. Mrs Robinson was asked by
Case Number: 2308344/2020
8 of 22
the Tribunal whether the final recruitment decision was solely based on the
performance at interview and she responded: “ It was, because the shortlisting
showed that each of the shortlisted candidates had the ability to potentially be
a Team Manager on what was written so the panel were just looking at the
interview.”
35. There were two streams of Team Manager recruitment happening at that time.
Mrs Robinson and Ms Wallen made up the shortlisting panel for the Team
Manager role that the Claimant applied for.
36. Of the seven short listed candidates, two were black internal employees, of
whom one was the Claimant, and the remaining five were white candidates. All
the white candidates were internal candidates, one had been working for the
Respondent on an agency basis. All the candidates were therefore known to
the recruitment panel.
37. We accept the Claimant’s evidence, which is not disputed, that at the time of
this selection process all the current Team Managers were white, as were all
the successful candidates for the exercise he took part in. It is accepted that
some time afterwards, the Team Managers had a more diverse profile. The
Claimant says this was a result of his raising his general complaints about
recruitment and the lack of diversity and inclusion within management.
Interview
38. The Claimant was interviewed by telephone on 26 May 2020. The interview
panel was made up of the two senior management, Mrs Robinson and Ms
Wallen, who shortlisted the candidates. Only Mrs Robinson attended the
hearing to give evidence. We note that Ms Wallen, the chair of the recruitment
panel and the more senior manager of the two, is still employed by the
Respondent. She was not put forward by the Respondent as a witness and we
were not provided with any explanation for this. The Tribunal would have found
her attendance as a witness helpful.
39. It is not clear whether the interview was recorded. The Claimant and Mrs
Robinson gave evidence that they believed it was recorded. Mrs Robinson
explained that her understanding was that the recording would have been
retained by the tele-conferencing system and later deleted from the server but
she was not sure how long after the recording this would have been. The
Claimant believed that all telephone calls within the respondent were recorded
as a matter of course. At the conclusion of the hearing the Claimant produced
an e-mail from Chris Randall of HR of 16 June 2021 [415] stating that the
interview had not been recorded. In any event we have no more than the
interview scoresheets to reflect what occurred during the interview with the
Claimant. We note that the e-mail from Mr Randall was written over a year after
the interview. Given the timing of its production, we attach little weight to it in
any event.
Interview score sheets
Case Number: 2308344/2020
9 of 22
40. We were provided with a score sheet for each of the seven candidates
completed by each of the interviewers. The interview score sheets for six of the
candidates, including the Claimant are all dated 26 May 2020. The interview
sheet for one of the unsuccessful candidates, who is black, is the only one dated
another date, 2 June 2020.
41. We were told by Mrs Robinson that the forms were completed
contemporaneously at the time of the interview by each panel member with the
scores being determined in discussion by the panel members after each
interview. Mrs Robinson in her evidence explained that the panel had a wash
up session to discuss the candidates and after that discussion, they both scored
each of them. We note that all the candidates, apart from one, were scored
identically on each of the questions by each of the panel. There were three
questions. The design of each question was in two parts: the first was to ask the
question in general terms and the second to ask for an example. The questions
asked about (1) management and leadership style; (2) motivating your team;
and (3) dealing with a challenging employee. The evidence of Mrs Robinson
was that if an individual answered the first part but did not provide an example,
the candidate was then not prompted to provide an example. She explained this
was because the role required listening skills so that whilst a candidate could
ask for the question to be repeated, if they did not provide the example, they
would not be assisted by the panel.
42. At the top of each score sheet completed by Ms Wallen, she had inserted a
“Yes” next to the box asking “Is the candidate appointable?”. This included the
score sheet for the Claimant, even though he was not appointed. All the score
sheets completed by Mrs. Robinson had this question answered “Yes/No”.
There was only one exception to this. The unsuccessful candidate, interviewed
on a different date, 2 June, had her box left blank.
43. Ms Wallen did not attend as a witness to explain why she said that the Claimant
was appointable. Mrs Robinson said in evidence that the “Yes” in the score
sheet was a “regrettable mistake”. It was not addressed within the witness
statement of Mrs Robinson or any other evidence, until Mrs Robinson was
asked about it in cross-examination. Mrs Robinson apologised for the error and
said it may be that a previously completed form was “cleaned”, that is saved
and re-used, “and then re-filled with details” of the next candidate, as it was a
Word document. She could not “vouch for it” but believed this might be the
reason.
44. We were concerned about this approach to completing the interview score
sheet, the explanation for the wrong answer and that it had not been addressed
previously. We find however that because all the forms by Ms Wallen on the 26
May were completed in the same way, including that of BN who was also
unsuccessful and scored 6/15 [297], and all those completed by Mrs Robinson
answered “Yes/No” that Ms Wallen’s entry was an error, albeit a serious and
unfortunate one, on the part of the Respondent. The score sheets were
relatively short, requiring marks out of five on only three questions. Whether a
candidate was to be appointed was obviously a key question. In addition to BN
also having a “Yes” in answer to this question on his score sheet with the low
score of 6, we are also reinforced in our conclusion by considering the scores
Case Number: 2308344/2020
10 of 22
more generally to attain a pass mark for the role and the evidence on this by
Mrs Robinson.
45. Mrs Robinson in her evidence explained that a pass mark was set but she could
not recall exactly what the pass mark was. AMA scored 9 and was offered the
role so Mrs Robinson believed it would have been 9. She said that AMA would
not have been offered the role, if she had not passed. The scoring matrix set
out at the front of each score sheet describes “(1) Very limited response; (2)
Limited response; (3) Satisfactory response; (4) Thoughtful, detailed response
and (5) A well-structured, comprehensive, thoughtful response [290]. Mrs
Robinson's evidence that 9 was the pass mark matches the average score of 3
for each question qualifying as a satisfactory response.
46. A number of the other candidates had fairly full notes, though not all, whilst the
Claimant’s notes appeared quite sparse. The Claimant in his evidence claimed
that the notes on his sheets did not reflect his full answers at interviews. He said
that if that were the case the interview would have lasted no longer than about
5 minutes and he recalled the interview lasting about 20 minutes. There was no
dispute about the length of the interview.
47. There was a dispute as to when the notes were prepared, whether at the time
or afterwards. Mrs Robinson in her evidence explained she typed them at the
time and described the Claimant at interview speaking in the same way that he
had spoken in giving his oral evidence to the Tribunal. The Claimant often gave
lengthy answers in questions before the Tribunal. We find on the balance of
probabilities that it is more likely that the Claimant gave more detail than is set
out within the interview sheets. We noted that LP, a white, successful candidate,
scoring 13/15 was described in her score sheet as giving “very detailed
answers” [307] but the notes themselves were not dissimilar from those of the
Claimant’s in length.
48. The notes did not always show any obvious correlation between the content of
the notes and the score that was given. An example of this was the score sheet
of LP by Ms Wallen [304, 305]. LP scored 4/5 on Question 1 and 2, compared
to the Claimant, who scored 2/5 for both. Yet the short form notes are similar in
length for both. Another example is that Mrs Robinson in her style and content
wrote out far more detail within the interview score sheet for LP [309] than she
did for the Claimant [294].
49. In contrast, Mrs Robinson gave AMA, a white, successful candidate, a low mark
of 2/5 on Question 3, on an answer with some detail, including an example of
how she demonstrated meeting the question asked [319], compared with the
Claimant, who scored a 3/5 on what appeared a more sparse answer with no
example. The Tribunal raised its concerns with the parties: the score sheet for
one of the successful, white candidates, who scored 10/15 included 3/5 on
Question 1 with no apparent example in the notes [321]. The same candidate
scored a high mark of 4/5 on Question 3, with again no example at all. Mrs
Robinson’s criticism of the Claimant was that he had scored 2s and a 3 as he
gave no examples. That did not reconcile with the successful candidate, who
had scored a 4/5, also with no example given.
Case Number: 2308344/2020
11 of 22
50. Another candidate scored 2/5, yet appeared to give an example in answer to
Question 3. Mrs Robinson’s evidence on this was that that example was marked
down because it had previously been given. That is not something that emerges
from a reading of the notes. The other unsuccessful, black candidate only
scored 3/5 on Question 1, yet the notes refer to an example that was given in
answer to the question.
The Claimant’s interview score sheet
51. Whilst the Claimant disputed the content of his notes more generally and
questioned the timing of their preparation, he was unable to provide the Tribunal
with any further detail that he said was either missing from the interview notes
or wrongly recorded within the notes. He was unable to point to any example he
had given in answer to the questions, which he said was not considered by the
panel. We do not have any other evidence to conclude that the score notes
were not prepared contemporaneously. We find they were prepared during the
interview and accept the evidence of Mrs Robinson on this.
52. The Claimant’s main criticism of the notes was their lack of detail. The main
criticism of the Claimant’s answers within the feedback on the notes and the
evidence of Mrs Robinson was that the Claimant had not answered the second
part of each question, as he had not provided any examples that he met the
criteria, even though he would have had examples to give. As set out, the
Claimant was unable to assist in expanding on his answers as recorded.
53. The only specific point of dispute by the Claimant was that he said he had not
described his style as “autocratic” as recorded in answer to Question 1. He
explained that he had said that on occasions, a manager making decisions may
appear autocratic but that is in the nature of management, that some decisions
are communicated in that way. It was put to the Claimant that both interviewers
used the identical wording of “may seem autocratic but gets the job done”[290,
294]. The Claimant responded that he had said he had a mixed approach, a
laissez-faire approach and went on to give an example where a Team Manager
may have to give instructions. He accepted that he used the words “autocratic
gets the job done” but not that he described this as his management style. There
is little in the difference between the notes and the Claimant’s recollection but
in so far as there is any difference, the Tribunal accepted the Claimant’s
recollection of this as more accurate.
54. The score sheet completed by Ms Wallen on 26 May 2020 gave feedback about
the Claimant: “good candidate … interview skills have definitely improved.
Immanuel answered question three well, but lacked depth on question one and
two (no examples). Immanuel would benefit from attending on-site interview
skills workshop, I feel this would help him to keep him focused on the question
being asked.” We find that this is evidence that Ms Wallen was noting an
improvement and recommending how he could improve for future interviews.
55. The Claimant was unsuccessful and scored a total of 7/15. The successful white
candidates were scored identically by each panel member: LP scored 13/15;
AMA 9/15; CL 10/15; HA, 14/15.
Case Number: 2308344/2020
12 of 22
56. The unsuccessful candidates were ZB, a black candidate with a score of 8/15;
BN, a white candidate, scored 6/15 and 7/15, who was the agency worker but
had worked for the Respondent; and the Claimant scored 7/15.
57. Mrs Robinson was asked whether the Claimant raised in the interview his
experience of training 140 call handlers during the pandemic. In reply, she said
that would have been a “very good example as he would have been able to
express ways he supported and coached the staff in that environment”. She
also said that she had “never seen Mr Sodola coaching staff side by side as I
have seen the others, AM, L, C, H”. She added that she did not just know this
first hand, but that they had explained this in interview.
58. The Claimant in his evidence did not dispute either the scores or the interview
notes of the other candidates. He said he could not comment, some of them
were “very well constructed” and he had no reason to doubt how they were
marked.
59. In any event, the Claimant does not rely on any additional information that he
gave in interview as not included within the notes, he does not assert that he
was wrongly scored or should have been given a higher score, although this
may be said to be implicit in his claim. He does not dispute the answers the
successful candidates gave nor does he dispute their scores, all of which
passed the pass mark of 9.
60. For completeness, we make no further finding as to the treatment of the
Claimant in respect of his right to work documents, as that is not a claim that is
before the Tribunal. The Order of 8 June 2022 referred to it as background,
which is how we have treated it.
Verbal feedback
61. In early June 2020, Claimant received a call from Mrs Robinson that he had
been unsuccessful and had not obtained the role. He says that he was given
the usual vague feedback: “you are a strong candidate, but other candidates
are more qualified and experienced”. At the time, he had been employed for 7
years and 5 months.
62. In an email of 23 August 2020 from Mrs Robinson to the Claimant, Mrs Robinson
referred to this verbal feedback and set out that she advised that the Claimant
came across as very confident but did not answer questions effectively and that
she recommended he attend a workshop. We find that this very much reflects
the Claimant’s evidence on the generality of the verbal feedback and accept this
was all he was told. We also accept Mrs Robinson's evidence that he was
recommended to attend an interview workshop.
63. On 7 June the Claimant wrote to the interview panel to request written feedback
[346]. On the same date, 7 June 2020 [388], the Claimant wrote to Ann Jones,
111 Centre Operations Manager, and copied in Mrs Robinson with the subject
heading “BME representation in management roles” “Importance high”. He
requested an audience with her about Black and Minority Ethnic representation
in management roles and career progression for frontline/entry level BME staff.
Case Number: 2308344/2020
13 of 22
He set out that the aim of the meeting was to discuss their observations and
seek clarification.
64. On 8 June 2020 Ms Jones replied, copying in Mrs Robinson, that before they
arranged to meet she wanted to ensure that “those included have received
feedback on either their expression of interest submission or interview”. She
said “It is important that you have the opportunity to discuss this on an individual
basis. This will inform future discussions as well as your observations. I will
speak to Lisa, Deborah, Gina and Sabina to ensure these meetings are put in
place. Once your feedback has been completed we can arrange to meet.” [384]
65. On 9 June at 7.14am [384/385] Ms Jones emailed Debbie Hudson, Deputy Site
Lead 111, that she believed Ms Wallen was already in contact with the Claimant.
On 9 June 2020 Deborah Hudson 7.36am replied that she would “write to them
now offering a meeting - I will ask to respond by next Monday … would I need
to invite Immanuel to a meeting? BN has already asked for feedback so not
sure if Lisa and Gina have already emailed this to him.” [385]
66. On 9 June 2020 [346] Ms Wallen replied to the Claimant and Mrs Robinson that
the “The interview notes have been stored away safely and Gina [Mrs Robinson]
has the key. She is back on the 22
nd
June so will e-mail you then”.
67. We find this was an unhelpful response. Ms Wallen was the chair of the panel
and the most senior of the two, and the Claimant wrote to both of them. It is
also contrary to what the Respondent’s policy requires at paragraph 17.6 [181]
that all “interview notes together with all other recruitment documentation must
be returned to the Recruitment Department (either in hard copy or scanned and
emailed) and will be maintained in line with TP/030 Records”. The Tribunal
accepts that the Claimant may have taken from this, a reluctance to engage with
him. He made a reasonable request. Ms Wallen in her score sheet had set out
he was much improved and needed to improve his skills, which he could do with
some training. We were not provided with any reason as to why Ms Wallen could
not have provided her feedback or why she did not explain that Mrs Robinson
would provide hers on her return, adding to Ms Wallen’s feedback.
68. The Claimant did not receive anything further and on 25 June officially raised a
complaint about “Procedural misconduct in recruitment into team manager roles
at LAS”. His email was addressed to Ms Lynch, Head of recruitment, and he
copied in a number of others. The email was written to express “BAME staff
members’ dissatisfaction at the level of procedural misconduct on the last team
manager recruitment exercise” which he was a part of [347]. The Claimant
complained that “Interview records were neither maintained nor stored as
recorded by the procedure and this made it impossible to get a timely feedback
for inclusion in complaint to even challenge the process.”
69. More widely, the Claimant questioned the quality of feedback, the selection
process, career progression and requested an investigation and review of the
Team Manager recruitment exercise. He also requested “future internal career
progression recruitment exercises be conducted by non-local management
team or at least have an external moderator present.”
Case Number: 2308344/2020
14 of 22
70. Ms Lynch replied the following day on 26 June 2020 acknowledging the email
[351]. On 6 July she emailed the Claimant that an investigation would be led by
Jon Goldie, Interim Deputy Director Integrated Patient Care, within the Trust's
Grievance procedure. Mr Goldie would “assign an independent investigating
manager from Ambulance Services or EPRR.” [351]
71. By letter of 3 August 2020 to the Claimant, Mr Goldie referred to a meeting
between the Claimant and Paul Cook, Head of 111 IUC delivery, on 15 July to
discuss his concerns in more detail. [353] The same day, 3 August 2020, the
Claimant emailed Ms Lynch that had not heard from the investigator [349/350]
and that BAME staff felt “the management is not interested actively addressing
this unacceptable practise.”
72. There was a meeting on 18 August 2020 attended by the Claimant, Mr Goldie
and a number of others. We were provided with two sets of notes [355, 359]. At
the meeting the Claimant raised that he had been repeatedly unsuccessful in
his applications for Team Manager, including in his most recent application, and
that there was a wider issue as to the promotion of Black, Asian and Minority
Ethnic staff. He raised breaches of policy on written feedback, asked for a
review of past selection and that there should be transparency going forward.
He raised that it had been impossible for BAME staff members to proceed to
senior management roles because all mid-line management roles were
continuously filled with white British colleagues, some of whom are less qualified
and less experienced. He set out that this significantly contributed to the toxicity
[362] in the workplace. He also queried the reason other applicants received
written feedback when he did not and that an interviewer had locked away the
interview records and taken annual leave for weeks, knowing the policy only
allows 28 days to request an administrative review. He had still not received his
written feedback even though the panel member had been back for more than
8 weeks. He asked for an urgent review of the immediate past team manager
recruitment exercise. By email of 18 August 2020 he again set out his requested
outcomes, including a review of recruitment and assignment of BAME staff to
management. [358]
Written feedback
73. Finally, on 23 August 2020, some 3 months after the interview, the Claimant
received his written feedback by email, which was very brief, from Mrs Robinson
stating “you came across as very confident - however did not answer the
questions effectively - I recommend that you attend a workshop for interviewees
which the Trust offer.“[364] Mrs Robinson apologised for the delay and said that
she seemed to be having problems with her emails as she thought she had
responded.
74. Within the score sheets themselves on feedback, Ms Wallen had written the
Claimant’s “interview skills have definitely improved. Immanuel answered
question three well, but lacked depth on question one and two (no examples).”
She added that he would benefit from further training [293].
75. Mrs Robinson’s feedback on her score sheet was one line “Needs to remember
to include examples in answer.” [295]
Case Number: 2308344/2020
15 of 22
76. We find the feedback given to the Claimant in Mrs Robinson’s email was an
inadequate reply. The key point repeated in the score sheets and in Mrs
Robinson’s evidence was that he did not give examples, yet the feedback to him
does not refer to this. He was not given the information set out in the score
sheets. Mrs Robinson did not look back to Ms Wallen’s comments, which she
could have included to give the Claimant more detail.
Timing on feedback
77. The interview took place on 26 May 2020. The verbal feedback was provided in
the first week of June. The Claimant was told on 7 June that Mrs Robinson was
away until 22 June 2020. The eventual written feedback was on 23 August 2020,
2 months later. Mrs Robinson’s explanation to the Tribunal was that she was
away and not around very much but we accept her evidence that she worked
around 22 shifts in the 3 months of June, July and August, which included her
14 days leave. We accept this would have been a very busy period due to the
pandemic. She said she thought she sent the email and that it was in her draft
box. In the email of 23 August 2020 she referred to thinking, she had already
responded. She accepted there was a delay and explained the written feedback
was the same as the verbal feedback. The Claimant would have been no wiser
following receipt of the written feedback, as it added nothing to the verbal
feedback.
78. On 23 August 2020, the same day, the Claimant emailed in reply [363]. He was
clearly upset by the lack of detail and raised again the issue of structural racism.
79. There then followed a series of emails between 6 September to 11 November
2020 about scheduling a further meeting to discuss the wider grievance [365-
372]. Eventually the Claimant referred his claim to ACAS, which he informed the
Respondent of on 11 November 2020.
80. On 18 November 2020 Mr Goldie wrote to the Claimant explaining that due to
annual leave and structural changes within the team, they had been unable to
secure a suitable date to re-arrange a further meeting until then. He responded
to the Claimant’s concerns but the Claimant did not accept the content of the
letter. The letter referred to a number of actions on advertising, short-listing
offers, internal pre-employment checks and feedback [378].
Law
81. Section 4 of the Equality Act 2010 provides that race is a protected
characteristic. Section 9(1) sets out that race includes colour, nationality and
ethnic or national origins.
82. Section 39(2) of the Equality Act 2010 prohibits an employer from discriminating
against one of its employees by subjecting the employee to a detriment.
83. Section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 provides: -
Direct Discrimination
Case Number: 2308344/2020
16 of 22
‘A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected
characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others’.
84. Section 23(1) provides that where a comparison is made, there must be no
material difference between the circumstances relating to each case. It is
possible to compare with an actual or hypothetical comparator.
85. Section 136(2) provides
(1) This section applies to any proceedings relating to a contravention of this
Act.
(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.
86. That means that the burden is on the claimant to establish, on the balance of
probabilities, primary facts that, in the absence of an adequate explanation from
the respondent, show he has been subjected to less favourable treatment
because of his race. If he succeeds, the burden passes to the respondent to
prove otherwise. The standard of proof is again on the balance of probabilities.
In order to discharge the burden of proof, the Respondent must adduce cogent
evidence that the treatment was in no sense whatsoever because of the
claimant’s race.
87. The Court of Appeal in Madarassy v Nomura International PLC [2007]IRLR 246,
approving guidance in Igen v Wong [2005] ICR 931 stated:
‘The bare facts of a difference in status and a difference in treatment only
indicate a possibility of discrimination. They are not, without more, sufficient
material from which a tribunal ‘could conclude’ that on the balance of
probabilities, the respondent had committed an unlawful act of
discrimination.’ (56)
88. This approach was approved in Hewage v Grampian Health Board [2012] UKSC
37 and in Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi [2021] ICR 1263.
89. In Deman v Commission for Equality and Human Rights Commission & others
[2010] EWCA Civ 1279, Sedley LJ held:
We agree with both counsel that the “more” which is needed to create a
claim requiring an answer need not be a great deal. In some instances it
will be furnished by non-response, or an evasive or untruthful answer, to a
statutory questionnaire. In other instances it may be furnished by the
context in which the act has allegedly occurred.
90. Thus where there is a difference of treatment and a difference of status it does
not take much more to shift the burden of proof.
Case Number: 2308344/2020
17 of 22
91. In Efobi the Supreme Court emphasised the reminder in Hewage by Lord Hope
that on s136:
““It is important not to make too much of the role of the burden of proof
provisions They will require careful attention where there is room for doubt as
to the facts necessary to establish discrimination. But they have nothing to offer
where the tribunal is in a position to make positive findings on the evidence one
way or the other.”
92. The respondent does not have to show that its conduct was reasonable or
sensible for this purpose, merely that its explanation for acting the way that it
did was non-discriminatory. Bad treatment in itself is not discriminatory; what
needs to be shown is worse treatment than that given to a comparator, Bahl v
Law Society [2004] IRLR 799. Unreasonable behaviour alone cannot found an
inference of discrimination, but if there is no explanation for the
unreasonableness, the absence of explanation may give rise to this inference
of discrimination.
93. Direct evidence of discrimination is rare. Discrimination may not be intentional
and may be the product of unconscious bias or discriminatory assumptions
Nagarajan v London Regional Transport [1999] IRLR 572. For this and other
reasons, establishing discrimination is usually difficult and tribunals should be
prepared, where appropriate, to draw inferences of discrimination from the
surrounding circumstances or any other appropriate matter Amnesty
International v Ahmed [2009] ICR 1450.
94. To find discrimination has occurred, there must be some evidential basis on
which the Tribunal can infer that the claimant’s protected characteristic is the
cause of the less favourable treatment. The Tribunal can take into account a
number of factors including an examination of circumstantial evidence.
95. It may be appropriate on occasion, for the Tribunal to take into account the
respondents’ explanation for the alleged discrimination in determining whether
the claimant has established a prima facie case so as to shift the burden of
proof. Laing v Manchester CCC & others [2006] IRLR 748; Madarassy. It may
also be appropriate for the Tribunal to go straight to the second stage, where
for example the respondent assert that it has a non-discriminatory explanation
for the alleged discrimination.
96. Lord Nicholls in Shamoon v Chief Constable of the RUC [2003] IRLR 285 held
that sometimes the less favourable treatment issue cannot be resolved without
at the same time deciding the reason-why issue. He suggested that Tribunals
might avoid arid and confusing disputes about identification of the appropriate
comparator by concentrating on why the claimant was treated as he was, and
postponing the less favourable treatment question until after they have decided
why the treatment was afforded.
97. The essential question in a direct discrimination case is: what is the reason (or
reasons) for the treatment complained of?
Case Number: 2308344/2020
18 of 22
Conclusion and analysis
98. Having considered our findings of fact, the parties’ submissions and the relevant
law, we have reached the following conclusions on the agreed issues.
Rejection of Team Manager post
99. The Claimant compares himself with his white colleagues, who were successful.
All had passed the shortlist process, took part in the same interview exercise by
the same panel and were asked the same questions. All those who had been
shortlisted to interview were accepted by Mrs Robinson as able to do the job.
100. The Claimant has not queried that any of the candidates were not qualified but
asserts he was more qualified. There was no issue taken as to the comparators
or dispute that they were not suitable as comparators or that their circumstances
were materially different. Three were named in the agreed list of issues: LP,
AMA, and HA. During the hearing CL was also relied on.
101. We accept those candidates as comparators for the purposes of the selection
process. Of the seven candidates, four were ranked above the Claimant. The
Claimant suffered a detriment in not being appointed to the role.
102. Of all those interviewed, only the white candidates were successful. One white
candidate, from an agency but known to the panel, was also unsuccessful, but
the other unsuccessful candidates were black. The only two black candidates
of the group were therefore both rejected.
103. Further, all Team Managers at that time were white, which was accepted by the
Respondent. We were not provided with any statistics by the Respondent of
the racial profile of those in lower roles and senior management.
104. Mrs Robinson said that those shortlisted had the potential to be Team
Managers. That meant they all interviewed from the same start line. Mrs
Robinson also accepted that the Claimant’s experience of training Covid call-
handlers would have been a “very good example” to show how “he supported
and coached the staff in that environment. I have never see Mr Sodola coaching
staff side by side as I have seen the others…”.
105. The Claimant had applied a number of times before. He was known to the
recruitment panel. All of the candidates were known to the panel. He had been
in his post for nearly 8 years and met the shortlisting criteria. The verbal
feedback given to him was very poor and the written feedback simply repeated
the same. By the time of the written feedback it was well known how disgruntled
he was with the process and that he was raising concerns about wider structural
discrimination and yet the written feedback provided no further detail, not even
the minimal feedback that Ms Wallen and Mrs Robinson had entered on their
interview score sheets.
106. As set out this was against the background that the Claimant had raised that
there was a systemic issue of Black and Minority Ethnic staff not being promoted
Case Number: 2308344/2020
19 of 22
and that he had been a victim of this in his latest application. This was also
against the background that at the time of the written feedback there had already
been considerable delay in getting this to him.
107. We conclude that in the absence of explanation from the Respondent, there is
a prima facie case that the Claimant was treated less favourably in not having
been appointed to the Team Manager position. That means the burden shifts
to the Respondent to discharge.
108. We considered whether the Respondent provided cogent evidence to
demonstrate that the decision not to appoint the Claimant had nothing
whatsoever to do with his race.
109. The Respondent’s evidence was that having passed the shortlisting stage, the
candidates were assessed entirely on their performance at interview. The
explanation is therefore that he failed due to the answers he gave at interview.
We did not have any evidence that there was anything missing from the notes
of how the Claimant performed at interview. Further, whilst the notes were very
brief, the Claimant himself could not point to any further detail that he had given
at interview that was not recorded. We accept the evidence of the interview
record that there were no examples offered by the Claimant to demonstrate his
competencies. The Claimant was very open and honest when he very properly
in his evidence said that he could not remember whether he gave any examples
but that he was not in a position to assist the Tribunal with this.
110. The Claimant did not question the scores of the other candidates. Neither did
he question his own scores. We find the notes of his interview are problematic
in their brevity but equally the notes of all the candidates, successful or
otherwise varied in the level of their detail. It was unhelpful that Ms Wallen did
not attend. We noted also that the wash up discussion occurred before each
individual interviewer’s scores were set, which explains why they are identical
apart from on one single question of one of the other candidates. The scores
were therefore not compiled independently of each other.
111. We come back to the point that no issue was taken on the scores of the
successful candidates. We were concerned that Mrs Robinson said that she
had seen the candidates coaching side by side but we accept her evidence that
this was also raised at interview.
112. We find that on the balance of probabilities and after considerable thought, the
rejection of the Claimant was based solely on the interview scores. We accept,
as did the Claimant, that the scores of the successful candidates reflected their
performance at interview and that those who scored 9/15 or above were
appointed. We found that on balance the Respondent had discharged the
burden of proof in its explanation that the Claimant did not perform to a
satisfactory standard on his scores of 2/2/3, albeit he had improved on his
previous performance. There were no examples on his form and he could not
point to having given any examples. On that basis there is a correlation between
the notes, albeit they are brief, and the scores. That is also borne out by the
verbal and written feedback, which again were brief but in line with the scores.
Case Number: 2308344/2020
20 of 22
Although Ms Wallen did not attend as a witness and it was clear to us that the
notes could have been more detailed, we find the Claimant was not
discriminated against because of his race.
113. We find that had the Claimant been prompted for examples, he would have been
able to provide these. That ties in with Mrs Robinson's evidence about him
having the relevant experience. However, we also accept the Respondent’s
evidence that if examples were not provided, the candidates would not be
prompted to give an example. Whilst we found this an unhelpful and rigid
approach to the interview process, it was not less favourable treatment. The
verbal feedback as reflected in the written feedback failed to set out that the
Claimant did not give examples, when this would have been the most obvious
and constructive feedback to give. We found this surprising given both
interviewers noted the lack of examples given by the Claimant and therefore,
had they limited their feedback to the notes alone, the Claimant would have
been better informed to understand why he was not appointed and how to
improve on his future interview technique.
Delay on feedback
114. On the second issue, which is whether the delay in providing feedback was
because of the Claimant’s race, the Claimant does not point to an actual
comparator and we considered whether a hypothetical, white comparator would
have had their written feedback delayed. There was clearly poor practice in the
significant delay of some 3 months from the time of the interview, but was this
because of his race?
115. We considered whether, in the absence of an explanation for the delay, there
was a prima facie case of less favourable treatment on grounds of race. We
found that the delay was poor, the verbal feedback was bare, the response from
Ms Wallen inadequate, as she could have provided some detail, and we find
that when eventually provided, the very brief, written feedback gave no
additional or meaningful detail. We also note that this was against the
background that the Claimant had repeatedly applied before for the same role
and repeatedly been unsuccessful. Constructive prompt feedback was of
particular importance to him.
116. This was also against the background that after the selection process, the
Claimant, and the Respondent, knew that he as a black man did not get the job,
four white people were appointed to a position that at that time was filled with
only other white staff. He was given bare verbal feedback and, in the meantime,
repeatedly raised issues of the lack of recruitment of BAME staff more widely;
the lack of diversity in management; the lack of career progression for his BAME
colleagues, including for himself; the lack of written feedback to him; and the
failure of the Respondent to comply with its own policies on storing its records.
117. Mrs Robinson worked 22 shifts in the period the Claimant was asking for his
feedback, which, when it eventually arrived, was minimal. So there was
considerable time for her to have produced the notes, even after her return from
leave in June, albeit we accept that this would have been a busy time due to the
Case Number: 2308344/2020
21 of 22
pandemic. Ms Wallen opted out, by deferring a reply on written feedback to Mrs
Robinson, even though Ms Wallen was the chair of the panel. There is no
explanation as to why she could not simply have provided her own feedback. In
addition, the panel did not follow the procedure in its own policy as to the storing
of the notes. Neither were the notes sent to HR.
118. We considered whether to draw adverse inferences from our primary findings
of fact that in the absence of an explanation, the Claimant was treated less
favourably because of his race. We find for the reasons set out above, including
that the Respondent avoided giving feedback, that there is a prima facie case
to answer. The burden of proof therefore shifts to the Respondent and we
considered the explanation. We find that the explanation given is that Mrs
Robinson was initially away, then delayed due to the pressures of the pandemic
and, in the meantime, the papers were locked away. Mrs Robinson did
apologise for the delay and explain that she thought she had responded. There
is no explanation for how Ms Wallen chose to reply to the Claimant.
119. Has the Respondent discharged the burden of proof? We find that against the
serious grievance brought by the Claimant, which featured in the background
and concerned the lack of career progression for Black and Minority Ethnic staff,
and which was triggered by the Claimant not being appointed on this last round,
there was a shying away from engaging with the Claimant on his feedback. He
was not even given the interview notes or the content of the feedback within the
notes, including that he had not provided examples in answer to the questions,
until after he brought these proceedings.
120. The Respondent knew that the Claimant had been asking for feedback from the
time he was told that he had been unsuccessful. Both the panel that interviewed
him and those dealing with his official complaint were aware of his repeated
requests for feedback. In her email of 8 June 2020, Ms Jones specifically
referred to not meeting the Claimant until he received his feedback. Mrs
Robinson was copied into this email [383].
121. The Respondent was aware that the Claimant had raised that there was a wider
systemic issue in the lack of diversity in management. It initiated an investigation
into this. Only white candidates were recruited on the latest selection exercise.
The written feedback, in identical terms to the verbal feedback, was within Ms
Wallen and Mrs Robinson’s possession from the outset. Ms Wallen could have
dealt with this but refused to. Mrs Robinson relied on delays in general terms
and thinking she had sent it. When the feedback was provided, there was no
change to it from the verbal feedback. It described in general terms that the
Claimant “did not answer the questions effectively” without stating he did not
give examples. That gave the Claimant no further understanding on why he
had not been appointed. It demonstrated an unhelpful approach and
undermined the explanation for the delay of 3 months in replying to him.
122. For those reasons, we find the Respondent has failed to adduce cogent reasons
for the delay. We do not accept that the explanation was in no way because of
the Claimant’s race. The Respondent had the feedback from the day of the
interview on 26 May 2020 and even though the Claimant was clearly concerned
Case Number: 2308344/2020
22 of 22
about receiving this, the Respondent delayed providing what was eventually of
minimal value, as it simply repeated the initial verbal feedback.
123. We therefore dismiss the race discrimination claim on the decision not to appoint
the Clamant to the Team Manager role.
124. We uphold the claim that the delay in not providing written feedback to the
Claimant until 23 August 2020 amounted to less favourable treatment on
grounds of his race.
125. This will be set down for a remedy hearing, unless the parties can agree, in view
of the fact that the Claimant remains employed by the Respondent.
Employment Judge Braganza KC
Date: 19 January 2023
Public access to Employment Tribunal decisions
All judgments and reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at
www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimant(s)
and respondent(s) in a case.
