The Claimant began working for the respondent in 2019. While on a temporary deployment relating to the pandemic she was warned that her original role was unviable. After an abortive possible promotion she returned to the original team though no suitable full time position was available. Following a poor appraisal grade and a failed grievance relating to it, a post became available but the claimant did not apply, querying why it had not been given to her, and the role was given to a male colleague. These proceedings were started shortly after. The ET concluded that there was no race discrimination in the decisions of her managers and that she misunderstood the appraisal grading.

In this judgment, the EAT reviews the case law around subconscious discrimination, before going on to refute the various grounds of appeal. They note that although the ET did not refer to subconscious discrimination in its reasons or consider this as a separate matter, "its findings effectively precluded findings that the Claimant’s Indian origins subconsciously influenced the decisions of the Respondent" and had permissibly found no facts to infer this had happened.