The Claimant has a stammer and was assumed to be a disabled person at this stage of the proceedings. His claim concerned the Respondent’s advertisement for telephone researchers. He alleged that a stated requirement for applicants to have “a clear voice” and a question that asked whether applicants were “in good health” were discriminatory and he claimed that in consequence he was deterred from applying for the position. The ET considered that the claim had little reasonable prospect of success. As regards direct discrimination, the Claimant was unable to identify why non-disabled candidates with comparable abilities would not have been equally put off from applying. Additionally, he would not be able to show that he was genuinely interested in applying for the role. As regards the alleged indirect discrimination claim, the ET concluded that it was very likely that the Respondent would be able to make out a justification defence in relation to the clear voice PCP given the nature of the role; and that the Claimant would not be able to show individual or group disadvantage in relation to the (assumed) PCP for applicants to be in good health. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The ET had correctly identified the comparator for the purposes of the direct discrimination claim as non-disabled potential applicants with the same abilities as the Claimant. Additionally, the ET was right to treat both the direct and indirect discrimination claims as requiring the Claimant to show he was genuinely interested in the position.