A man who took legal action against Aberdeen University claiming he lost out on a job because he is a “white, married, heterosexual, Christian” has had his case dismissed.
An employment tribunal heard that Ray Joseph believed the university discriminated against him – despite the institution insisting he had been successful in getting the job as a tennis co-ordinator.
Mr Joseph, 32, had applied and interviewed for the role but claims the email offering him the job never arrived in his inbox.
He also claimed the university fabricated a follow-up email when the job was about to be re-advertised.
Employment Judge Wiseman heard how Mr Joseph had applied and was interviewed for the post of university tennis co-ordinator on November 27 2023.
But this was followed by a dispute over whether he was then offered the post.
It also resulted in Mr Joseph obtaining an order from the tribunal which was served on Google and led to an internal investigation of the university’s IT systems.
Aberdeen university accused of discrimination
While the university insisted Mr Joseph was the best candidate and was offered the job, he said he received no such offer.
Meanwhile, when Mr Joseph failed to respond, the university says it withdrew the job offer and the post was re-advertised.
Mr Joseph told the Glasgow tribunal it was the university’s desire to run an “inclusive tennis programme” that resulted in discrimination and him not being offered the job.
The tribunal judgement said “the claimant considered that as a 32 year old white, married, heterosexual, Christian, American born male, he did not fit in with the University’s diversity and inclusion agenda for the job role”.
“It is clear the University of Aberdeen have discriminated against me …” he claimed.
“The only reasonable explanation for this, considering I was the most qualified candidate for the job, is that they discriminated against my protected characteristics of age, race, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, religion and nationality.”
He said he was told the university was ideally looking for an applicant who came from a traditionally under-represented background to promote tennis to a wider demographic in Aberdeen.
Protected characteristics
This theme arose during his interview “as if to insinuate that I was not suitable for the position based on my protected characteristics” he said.
He insisted no contact was made with him, he was not offered the job, and the university had fabricated documentation.
Later, when Mr Joseph gave the university a chance to proceed with offering the job before it was re-advertised, they refused.
But he says a member of staff subsequently fabricated a retroactive job offer with an expired acceptance deadline and falsely claimed to have called his phone multiple times.
Staff member altered email
A staff member referred altered the December 6 email before a copy was released, adding a sentence saying, “we’d be grateful if you could confirm your acceptance by Friday 8 December.”
Acting for the University of Aberdeen, solicitor Neil Maclean said this did not undermine the recruitment process or the emails.
The tribunal said Mr Joseph may not have received emails of a job offer, but it was established they had been sent to the correct address and received by Google’s mail server.
When the claimant used a tribunal order on Google to get to the bottom of this, they advised him UK accounts are dealt with in America and that this was outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Application to include Lawn Tennis Association refused
Mr Maclean said the claimant sought to argue the university wanted to run an inclusive tennis programme and that this resulted in discrimination and him not being offered the job.
The key flaw in this, argued the solicitor, was the fact the university offered Mr Joseph the job.
Judge Wiseman struck out Mr Joseph’s claim.
The judgement added: “The tribunal, having had regard to all of the above points, concluded the claimant had no reasonable prospect of success of showing that he was not offered the job, and that the reasons for that were discriminatory.”
The judge also refused an application by the claimant to join the Lawn Tennis Association, who were 50% co-funders of the tennis job, as a respondent to proceedings.
Conversation