The Claimant succeeded at a first interview with the Respondent but failed to secure the post after his second interview. He claimed that this was because of his race, the interviewer's rationale suggesting a racist undertone. Given that the interviewer's rationale was at the heart of the claim, it was agreed by the parties that the ET should go straight to the second stage of the two-stage approach to the burden of proof and section 136 of the EqA - the reason why question - and thus consider whether the Respondent had discharged the burden upon it by proving that the treatment was not on the proscribed ground. The ET dismissed the claim after first making findings of fact as to what had been discussed at the second interview and found, contrary to the Claimant's case, this had provided the basis for the decision not to appoint, as had been explained to him. Testing the Respondent's evidence and explanation, the ET considered various points raised by the Claimant (including the racial diversity within the workplace; the lack of up-to-date equal opportunities training; the Respondent's failure to answer pre-action questions) but did not consider it should draw any inference from these matters. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The ET had subjected the Respondent's case to the appropriate level of scrutiny and had provided adequate explanation for its conclusions.