Does a failure to provide feedback about a job interview equate to race discrimination?
No, found the Employment Appeal Tribunal in London Ambulance Services NHS Trust v Mr I Sodola
In the recent case of London Ambulance Services NHS Trust v Mr I Sodola (debarred) [2026] EAT 6, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) overturned a finding by the Employment Tribunal (“ET”) of direct race discrimination arising from an employer’s failure to provide timely feedback about a job interview to a prospective employee.
Background
Mr Sodola (“the Claimant”) worked for the London Ambulance Services NHS Trust (“the Respondent”). He had worked for the Respondent since his employment transferred in November 2013. At the time of his claim, his job title was Health Advisor / Pathway Trainer.
In 2020, he applied for a role as Team Manager. This was his fourth application for this role. Mr Sodola was shortlisted alongside six other colleagues. Interviews took place, and he received the outcome in early June 2020. Mr Sodola was unsuccessful in his application.
Mr Sodola requested feedback from his interview on 7 June 2020. This was acknowledged by the Respondent on 8 June 2020. Thereafter, the Respondent advised that one of the interviewers had locked away the notes and would return from annual leave on 22 June 2020.
Mr Sodola raised a complaint regarding the failure to receive timely feedback, amongst other issues, on 25 June 2020. A meeting was held to discuss the complaint on 18 August 2020. Eventually, he received brief feedback on his interview on 23 August 2020. The feedback provided was generic, and he had already been provided with similar feedback previously.
Mr Sodola raised two claims of direct race discrimination at the ET. For the purposes of his claim, Mr Sodola described himself as a black African man. Of the other unsuccessful candidates, one was black and two were white.
The first claim, relating to not receiving the promotion, was not upheld by the ET.
The second claim, relating to the failure to provide feedback in a timely manner, was upheld. The ET concluded that the Respondent did not provide a “cogent” reason for the delay in providing feedback.
The Respondent appealed the decision, arguing that the burden of proof had not shifted to them under Section 136 of the Equality Act 2010, and that the ET had taken into consideration factors which were not relevant in determining whether the Mr Sodola’s race was at least one of the reasons why there was a delay in providing feedback.
The Law
Direct discrimination is defined in Section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA) as:
- 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.
- 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.
- But subsection (2) does not apply if A shows that A did not contravene the provision.
Sections 136 of EqA defines and provides for the shifting burden of proof in discrimination claims as follows:
EAT Decision
The EAT allowed the appeal, concluding that the ET had taken irrelevant factors into account when determining that the burden of proof had shifted from Mr Sodola to the Respondent.
Moreover, the EAT concluded that the primary findings of fact — including “that the delay was poor”, “the verbal feedback was bare” and “that the very brief, written feedback gave no additional or meaningful detail” — could not result in a decision that the delay in providing feedback was because of the Mr Sodola’s race.
In particular, poor treatment is not automatically discriminatory, and the EAT found no differential treatment on racial grounds.
Comment
Shona Christie, Solicitor in our Employment team, comments:
“This case highlights that an employer’s delay in providing feedback does not necessarily equate to a claim of direct discrimination.
“However, employers should be aware of potential risks if they fail to provide interview feedback to a prospective candidate in a reasonable timeframe.
“Additionally, where possible, the interview feedback should not simply be a reiteration of points already discussed or generic feedback shared with all unsuccessful candidates”.
Published 27 February 2026
